The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-08-18
ETHE sEABoARD CUT RATES.
Argument of Counsel ia the Injunction
Case.

Case.
Greenville. S. c., August 17.-Arga-
ment in the Seabourd Airline cut rate
injunction case was resumed to-day
with its development by counsel.
Col. Henderson, attorney for the
Southern railroad argued for two
hours to-day, sustaining the iurisdir-
tion of the court. He sustained tae
compaint of the bill, except so faG rs
it charged the Southern railway with
conspiracy. He argued that the cut
of 33 per cent by the SeabOard Air
Line was not made in connection with
legitimate business but was specially
intended 10 cripple the Southern ran
way. The Southern met the cut by
an eighty per cent reduction, so as to
end the war at once. He insisted that
the court could stop the war and thus
prevent great injury to railroad prop
erty and the property of private in
diyiduals. He virtually confessed that
he had no authority for his contention,
saying that the point was new, burt
he believed that the time would come
and come very soon, when the courts
would take jurisdiction 10 prevent in
jury and destruction of property. He
stated emphatieally that if the injUns-
ton was notmade peTmanentthe South
ern would go into the war to win. He
asserted that if this court had not in
terferred the whole mater would have
been settled before this time. He
quoted English authorities bearing on
the present suit, but could offer no
decisions on this question in the Uni
ted States courts.
Judge Watts, for the SeaboaHl Air
Line road, in his argument assersed
that the war was made by the South
ern and other. railways directly
against the Seaboard by the establish
ment of a line of steamers from Ports
mouth to Baltimore. He claimed that
the Seaboard Airline cut of thir&-
three per cent was made in the course
of legitimate business and said shat un-
der no circumstances would that road
return to the rates of the 12th of July.
The Seaboard Airline would not meet
the eighty per cent cut. He argued
that the court had no more rights to
interfere with the railroads than it
had to interfere with the business of a
private merchant The Interstate
der certain conditions to enforce uni
form rates and prevent discrimination
but had no power to establish rates
and make these rates iron clad. The
only power the Federal authorities
had under any circumstances was 30
prohibit excessive rates. He cited a
number of decisions by United States
courts to sustain this view and insisted
that the court was entirely without
jurisdiction.
Judge Cothran, for the Southern
road, followed Judge Wales. His ar
gument was devoted mainly to the
legal aspect of the question and show
ing that the court has the right TO in
terfere in a case of the kind at the
bar. He argued that when the inter
State law was inadequate to remedy
the difficulty, the court had the right
to exercise jurisdiction by injunction.
Mr.. A. I. Smythe, the author of the
bill OF complaint, commenced his ar
gument. In his Introduction he refer
red to the newspaper criticism in re-
gard to Judge Simonton. He remem-
bered the time when for such utter
anccs of editors and public speakers,
the men who made Them would be
brought to the bar for contempt The
Seaboard Airline was not here as a
railroad system, but the wo1fd knew
that it was at the bottom Of all this
trouble and it alone. II they were all
lowed to continue it would result in
the crushing out OF the small railroads
and it would be impossible to operate
themp and this would be a serious and
annoying inconvenience 30 the public.
He replied to the points OF other at
torneys and gave sounter-decsioEs TO
those cited.
AT six O'Clock court adjourned and
Mr.. Smythe will resume his argument
tomorrow.