Wichita eagle., 1888-08-29
FAIRALES DECISION.
He Files His Opinion in the Iowa Railroad
Cases,

Iowa CITY, Aug. 2S-Judge Fairall today,
sitting as chancellor, filed his opinion in
the case of the Iowa railways against the
Iowa railway commissioners, and in the
test case of the Chicago, Rock Island and
Pacific railway against the commissioners
to restrain them from putting into effect
the schedule of rates prepared by the COM
missioners in pursuance of the recent law
OF the Iowa legislature. The judge gives an
opinion of great length and sustains the
injunction. He goes into the history Of
railway legislation and quotes from many
authorities to sustain his position. First
he considers the question of the jurisdic-
ton OF the defendaAs and they whether
the state is such accessory party as pre-
sents assuming jurisdiction of the case.
The point proceeded that the court has
jurisdiction under the rule which author
ICES action against officers in their
official capacity whether to arrest
or direct their official actions by injunc-
ton or mandamus where such suits are
authorized by law and the act be done or
omitted.is purely ministerial in the per
formance or omission of which the plain
tiff has a legal interest, and these may be
maintained even though the state be
directly affected thereby. AS to the juris-
diction of the court of the subject matter
of the action this is sustained on the
ground that while the commissioners are
ton i'll fixing the rates yet
when they fix such rates so low that the
earnings are too low to enable the plaintiff
to pay fixed charges and operating ex-
penses then their acts contravene the spirit
of the statute which requires rates to be
reasonable and just, and is in violation or
the constitutional prohibitions which en-
fitle the common carriers to reward for
their services. The court further holds
that the tite of authority of
the legislature is between rates which
are compensatory and those which are
not, and when not compensatory a court
of equity has the authority to inquire into
the matter. This is based on the rights of
such a court to control action of public
officers and TO prevent them from acting
in violation of law. The chancellor holds
that in view OF the numerous
prosecutions which result for
violation OF the schedule
rates, the heavy judgments Tor damages
and penalties and the liability to criminal
prosecutions and the liability of the Of
ficers of the companies to fine aud impris-
onment; that under the doctrine of the
preventing of a multiplicity of such the
court has jurisdiction. That the objections
that court Of equity has no jurisdiction
10 restrain 4 criminal prosecution is not
prayer of the petition.
The court says in concluding: There is
line between rates that are compensatory
to the carrier and those which are not,
and on principle as well as authority, when
complaint IS made of an injury to private
rights by the act of public officials as al
legged in this case, ii is as in all other al
legged arrangements of such rights, the
duty OF judicial tribunals to investigate
and determine the very right of the mat
ter. whether il involves the validity of
statute OF the legality of the acts OF officers
there under While the dissolution of al
Injunction is left to the discretion of the
court OF chancellor, it is we'll settled rule
that in cases where the right to the iniunc-
ton is in great doubt and the effect of va
eating it would be TO leave plaintiff rene
dies in case Of final success, the rule is TO
continue the injunction. Governed by the
rule the motion in this case TO vacate the
existing Injunction was oyer-ruled. 10
which ruling defendants except
The Iowa commissioners appealed today
10 the supreme court.