Omaha daily bee., 1893-07-30

name graccs tho top line In the case of tho
Missouri Pacific, while Oliver Ames hVurcs
for the Union Pacific aud Henry L. Higgin-
son for the Burlington,
Ready for judicial Approval
In each case was submitted a type.writton
order for tho Judge 10 sign aud which reads
as follows:
Upon reading and filing the bin Of com
plant in the above entitled suit. ana it ap.
pearIng that the cxigency requires the
making Of this orior, it is ordered as fol.
lows:
ii That the defendants, the Chicago &
Northwestern Railway company, the Ere
mont, Eikhorn II Missouri Valley Railway
company and the Chicago. St. Paul, Min
neapolis & Omaha Railway company, their
directors, officers, agents and couuscllors be
eujoincL and restrained from making pub
fishing or posting schedule Of rates to be
charged by them for the transportation of
freight on or over any OF their roads IN this
state from one point 10 another therein ac-
cording TO the terms, provisions and com
mands OF the act in said bill called house
roll 33, and from reducing their charges for
such service from the rates now charged by
them To those prescribed in said act and
from obcying, observing or conforming TO
the commands, provisions and prohibitions
OF such act or any thereof.
THAT the defendants, George II. Hastings,
attorney general; John &. Allen, secretary
OF state; Eugene Moore. auditor of public
accounts: Joseph 5. BARLEY, state treas
urer, and y. II. Humphrey, commissioner of
public lands and buildings, constituting the
Board of Transportation of the state of Ne
braska, and William y. Dilworth j. M.
Kouutz and j. w. johnson, secretaries of
said board, their deputies, clerks and ser
wants, be enjoined and restrained from en-
tertaining. hearing or determining any COM
plant against the said companies or either
OF them for or on account of any act or
thing by them or their officers, agents, SER
wants or employees, done, suffered or omitted,
which may be commanded or forbidden by
said act,and from instituting or prosecuting or
causing to be instituted or prosecuted any
action or proceeding, civil or criminal. against
SAID companies or either of them or their
officers, agents, servants or employees. an
account OF any net or thing by them done
or omitted which may be forbidden or COM
manded by said act, aud particularly for not
reducing their present rates of charges for
transportation Of freight to those prescribed
in this act, and that the said attorney gem
eral BIO In like manner enjoined from bring
ing or aiding in bringing, or causing or ad-
vising to be brought any proceeding by way
of injunction or mandatory or other process
or civil action or indictment against said
companies or either of them, for or on
account of any act or omission on their part
commanded or forbidden by said house roll
3D.
VI That the county attorneys of this
state and all other persons be and they are
hereby restrained and enjoined from in
stituting or prosecuting or causing to be in
stltuted or prosecuted such actions
or proceedings on any of them and
that the plaintiff nave leave to in
scrt the names of any such person threaten
ing TO take such proceedings and take
out further order directed to him ana en-.
joining him as aforesaid, This order shall
remain in force until the formal motion for
injunction or to set aside this order is made,
heard and decided"
The Judge wanted time 30 peruse the bills,
and took them away with him when he went
to dinner. 1t has been whispered among the
lawyers that the Judge would not decide the
constitutionality of the new law, in the case
brough: by the Burlington few days ago to
restrain the Board of Transportation from
lowering Lincoln rates, but tnat he would
grant the injunction pending the determine
tlon OF the question of constitutionality by
the state supreme court.
1t is stated that these new suits will call
for determination of the question in the
federal court, as the plaintiffs assert in their
bill that there is no collusion between them
and the officers ana directors of their roads
to bring the case in this manner so as to give
the federal court jurisdiction in the matter
but the protection OF their own interests
compels the action, and in the absence of
collusion or conspiracy they are entitled to u
hearing OF the matter and Il final decision
there of the question of the constitutionality
of house rule 49,