Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1896-04-02


made against the code commissioners
by Senator Healy (Webster), the reply
of the commissioners and the surrejoin.
der of the young senator from Fort
Dodge. The discussion had its origin
in published interview in one of the
local papers in which Senator Healy
took the commission to task for the
manner in which the laws pertaining to
the railroads had been revised. The in.
terview was long one, but the prin.
cipal charges made by the senator were
as follows:
That the code commissioners had omit.
ted the provision for the enforcement OF
the orders of the railway commissioners
by injunction.
That by substituting writs of manda.
mus for injunctions they compelled
actions to be brought in courts of law
instead of in courts Of equity.
That they had shifted the burden of
proof.
That they had omitted entirely the
Sweeney law for the domestication OF
foreign corporations in this state.
Soon after the publication of the
Healy interview, Chairman Temple
called the entire code committee of the
house together and Judge Winslow and
Hon. Horatio F. Dale, two of the mem.
bers of the code commission, appeared
before them.
In speaking for the commission, Judge
Winslow said that he had felt it was
their duty after a member of the legisla.
ture had made the charges that Senator
Healy had, to meet them. He then took
up the charges and claimed in regard to
the first that the intention Of the COM
mission in substituting writs of manda.
mus for injunction proceedings was to
give to the courts larger powers for the
enforcement Of the orders and require
ments of the railroad commission. He
also said that they had found nothing in
the law which prohibited the legislature
from enactlng statute comforting upon
courts of equity the right to issue writs
Of mandamus, and with that power
granted. h thought that the law would
be stronger than it is at present. He
then referred to the chapter preceding
the one i'll which the matter complained
Of occurred, and said that q reading of
section 10, of chapter q of the title re-
ferring to internal improvements (Titlo
K. page 1867, would show that the right
OF injunction had been preserved. This
chapter, lie said, should be carefully
compared with section l6, chapter Z,
page Al3 Of tho proposed revision, and
such comparison would cOnyinc2 any
one that the cuGo provisions for the en-
fOrcemcrt Of the c. mEllSsiOn'S orders
had Ill fact been strengthened. How
ever" ne said, If the word injunction
is the negro IL the wUOGpilc, why, put
it i'll section Is. bat in my opinion, it
Will adj NCt-2.ng = the law DIS 1t is in
the proposed revision"
III regard +" TIE charge that the code
commission a"u shifted the burden Of
proof in cases against the railroads, he
said that the provisions of the code In
regard to the orders Of the railroad COM
miSSioners being prima facie evidence
left the burden o! proof where II had
been. There WAS III TACT no change in 1t.
Omission OF the Sweeney Law.
He admitted that the Sweeney law
had been omitted and said that the codo
commission left il out for the reason that
the supreme court of the United States
had held that the principle of that law
was unconstitutional. There might be,
he admitted. something saved out OF
the Sweeney law. Two members Of
the commission had thought so and had
attempted to draft q bill that should
save as much as possible Of this law,
but they had been unable to agree on
the subject and so they had decided to
omit the law. He thought that the pro-
visions requiring q resident director in
oil the bridges across tho rivers on our
boundaries, and the provisions requir-
ing the fling Of the articles of incor-
poration Of foreign railroad companies
In this state saved to the people all that
was Of value in the law in its applica-
ton to the railroads.
Mr.. Dale, in his remarks, said that
the commissioners had believed that the
legislature could pass . law that would
permit courts of equity to issue writs of
hnandamus, and If this was done they felt
that the people had better protection in
the exercise of their rights than II they
had only recourse TO Injunction. The
writ of mandamus. he said, commando
the railroads to obey the orders Of the
commission, while the Injunction only
forbid their further disobsdience. The
revised code gave to the people both
remedies.
In regard to the provision governing,
taking cases away from juries, he said
That the present law was silent on that
subject, and no felt further that 10 was
. power that was sometimes abused by
The judges and tho commission had sim
ply attempted to ine0pcrats what il
now the law as laid down By the decis-
ions Of the supreme court.
AS to the purpose of the commission,
Judge Winslow said in closing his re-
marks that the commission had given
% the Legislature the best work of their
brains that the time would permit. They
asked criticism, for they did not claim
to be infallible, but they had done the
best they could and the work was hon
estly done.
The day following this meeting an in
terview with Senator Healy appeared in
which he took the ground that the COM
mission had no right to claim that the
powers specified in the chapter first cited
by them referred to the matters con-
sidered in the chapter following, for the
reason that chapter deals with the or
ganization! of the railway commission