The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-03-04


Speaking OF the case Of the United
States W. the Missouri Pacific Railway
company. Mr.. ". c. Perry. United
States attorney. gave to an Eagle re-
porter the following statement:
After the demurrer OF the railway
company oiled Jan. u, lSsi) 10 the bill
OF complaint was ove-ruled on Sept. II.
1894 The railway company on Oct- "A.
1894, filed a Volumnious and exceedingly
technical answer. The people Of Wich-
ia. through the public press, have been
advised thar the object of the suit IS 10
compel the railway company 10 cease
alleged discrimiRa lions in freight rates
10 Wichita and vicinity. and that the
complaint shows charges con an aver
age) OF twice as much on freight from
ST. Louis 10 Wichita as from 81. Louis
10 Omaha. although the mileage. via the
Missouri Pacific railway. from St Louis
TO Wichita : about fifty miles less than
the mileage from s.. Louis 10 Omaha.
This answer (Which has also been pub
lShed set up a great variety Of ex-
cusss for this apparent discrimination,
alleged that the United States could
not lawfully bring or maintain the suit.
and reiterated the objections taken 10
the bill OF complaint on the argument OF
the demurrer.
The answer was attacked for insufici-
ency by what are known as exceptions.
These exceptions were filed Feb. l.. 1885,.
on Feb. IS, 1885. the railway company
fled a motion 10 take the exceptions
from the files. This motion (and in
cidentally the exceptions themselves
was argued and submitted on March
is, 1895, and on Dec. 10, 1895, the court
flied an opinion overruling the motion
OF the railway company and sustaining
the exceptions OF the government 20 the
answer. The order gave the defend
ant until Feb. ;. 1895, 10 file an amended
answer. Recently al Fort Scott, Colonel
Richards, general attorney for the rail
way company notified the United States
attorney that he had applied TO the court
Judge Williams) for leave 10 fully argue
the merits of the exceptions 10 the ans
wer. and that the order OF Dec. is, 1895.
had been set aside. and the motion for
re-argument granted This argumen.
is expected to take place as soon afte~
March 10 as counsel can get the ear of
the court. Ii Is probably best that this
re-argument should take place, as the
meat Of the case is involved in the ex-
ceptions 10 the answer.
Pending the argument OF and the de-
cision on the motion to take the excep,
tions from the files, Mr. Howard OF Wich
ita without advising Mr.. Perry wrote
the Interstate Railway Commission, ask
ing the employment OF additional coun-
gel for the government and Mr. Perry,
without the knowledge of Mr.. Howard,
also wrote the commission to the same
effect. They both agreed in recon-
mending the employment Of Morris Gig
gift, formerly assistant United State.
attorney, and the result is that Mr.
Cliggitt has been employed at the eX-
pense OF the commission. and will here
after devote his time and talents TO the
government side OF the case
The case is rightly regarded as Inn
portant. The citizens OF Wichita anl
the Interstate Railway Commission are
all deeply interested in the outcome. If
the contention Of the government is
sound it opens the courts to complaints
of this character, and communities can
hereafter ask for intunctions in the fed
eral courts against determinations pra c
ticed on them by common carriers en-
gagged IN interstates business
Ii is the purpose of the government
officials TO push the case 20 a final de-
termination as speedily as possible The
novelty and importance Of the questions
involved tended to delay matters here
tofOre. and may somewhat in the future
The courts naturally move in such a
case with great deiiberation: and after
all, especially in such a case, haste. at
the expense OF error, would be very
bad investment