Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1888-08-29
IOWA DEFEATED AGAIN.
THE RAILWAYS CAPTURE ANOTHER
POINT IN THE LITIGATION

Over the Rates Recently Fixed by the
Commissioners-Judg Fairali Refuses
to Vacate the Injunction Against the
Scheduled Few Points from the De-
cision-Appeal to the supreme Court.
Iowa CITY, Ia, Aug. 29-Judge Fairall,
sitting as chancellor, filed his opinion yester
day in the case of the Iowa railways against
the Iowa railway commissioners, 1t being
the test case of the Chicago, Rock Island &
Pacific railway to restrain the commissioners
from putting into effect the schedule of rates
prepared by the commissioners in pursuance
of the recently enacted law. The judge sus-
tains the injunct on. He goes into the his
tory of railway legislation, and quotes from
many authorities to sustain his position.
First, he considers the question Of the ju-
risdiction of the defendants and whether the
state is such necessary party precludes as
Stunning jurisdiction of the case. The point
is decided that the court has iuris fiction I'M
der the rule which authorizes actions against
officers in their official capacity, whether to
arrest or direct their official actions by in
junction or mandamus. where suits are au-
thorizsd by law, and the act to he done or
emitted is purely ministerial, in the perform
ance or emission Of which the plaintiff has a
legal interest; and these may I've maintained
even though the state be directly affected
thereby.
The jurisdiction of the court on the subject
matter of the action is sustained, on the
ground that while the commissioners are au-
thorized to exercise discretion in fixing the
rates, yet when they fix such rates so that the
earnings are too low 10 enable the plaintiff to
pay fixed charges and operating expenses
then their acts eontravene the spirit of the
statute, which requires rates to he reasonable
and just and is in violation of the cunstitu-
tional provisions which entitle common
carriers to a reward for their services
The chancellor holds, in view of the
many prosecutions which must result for a
violation Of the schedule rates, the heavy
judgments for damag = and penalties, and the
liability Of the officers OF the companies to
fine and Imprisonment that unler the doc
trine of preventing multiplicity of such the
court has jurisdiction; that the Objection
that a court If equity has no jurisdiction to
restrain a criminal prosecution is not well
| taken under the facs stated, and the prayer
| of the petitioner is granted.
|
| charges of common carrier, said the ju lge,
rs settled question, but it is also settled
| that such rates must not take private prop
erty for public use without Just compenss-
ton 1t * clearly shown that the schedule
as fixed by the defendants was never legally
adopted and that the statutory notice was
not given The plaintiff AYERS that the rates
are too low 10 pay fixed charg ami operat-
ing expenses the ella IN Of the defendants
| that the charges are reasonable is only a
statement and opm,on la my Judgment
the allegations of fact are sufficiently well
statei to ton motion like the one und r
| consideration sustain tue existing orler
The alleged haIdshiF to the public, of con.
| tinuing the injunction until final hearing
has been ably and forcihly presented. has re
ceived my most careful consideration, and #
under the wel-settlel principles Of equity,
jurisdiction and the rules Of practice in case.
of this character the order could he vacated
and the right of both parties protected,
would eheerfuily sustain the motion Tn,
fact, however, that the public, while
the proceedings were pending. would
be deprived OF the benefit. if any,
of the enfgcement of the schedule of rates,
the restraining order There is line be
tween rates which are compensatory to the
carrier and those which are not, and on
principle, as well as authority when com
plant is made of an injury to private right.
by the acts OF public officials, as alleged III
this case it is as in all other alleged in
fringemeuts of such rights, the duty Of judi
cial tribunals to investigate and determin,
the very right of the matter whether it in
volved validity of a statute OF the legality Of
the acts of officials acting Hereunder
while the dissolution OF an injunction il
left to the discretion of the court or chancel
lor it is well settled rule that in case
where the right to an injunction is in grea
doubt and the effect of vacating it woult
leave the plaintiff remedies in case of final
success, the rule is to continue the injunction
Governed by this rule. the motion in thi
case to vacate the existing injunction is over
ruled =
The commissioners have appealed the cas-
to the supreme court: