The San Francisco call., 1896-04-25
HAYNE WILL END
NEXT TUESDAY.
At All Events Such Is His
Solemnly Plighted
Word.
AGAINST INJUNCTION.
He Ayers That Courts Cannot
Enjoin the Railway
Commission.
MAKES SOME STRONG POINTS.
It Is Contended That the Cases Ex'
hibit No Conflict on the Points
Involved.
MAKES SOME STRONG POINTS.

The pattering raindrops played lively
accom- paniment of birdlike trills and tink-
ling arpeggios to :the melody of Attorney
HAYNES well-modulated voice during all
of yesterdays session of the United States
Circuit Court. The gifted barrister was
continuing his long and acutely reasoned
argument in the action of the Southern
Pacific Company against the State Rail-
way Commission, and seemed to display
as much fire and incisiveness as at the
commencement of his able plea, if not
more.
THE Railway Commission" he said,
"has two specific powers; one is that OF
fixing, establishing and regulating trans
portation rates, the other that of adjudi-
eating upon particular cases. This latter
power renders the commission able to en-
force its decisions by invoking the aid of
the laws authority in support of its rul-
ings. When the law does intervene to
carry out such rulings of the commission
the proceeding is in its nature criminal,
and any disregard of it may be punished
by fine or Imprisonment, or BOTH"
Mr.. Hayne read number of cases in
support of this view, one of which, in
sixth Mackay's Reports, made such an
impression upon Judge Mckenna's mind
that his Honor requested that 1t be read
over again. The case takes the ground
that it would not be legal or proper for a
court of law or equity to restrain a public
officer in tie lawful discharge of his pub
lie duty. This principle, Mr.. Hayne con-
tended, was applicable TO the case at bar,
and precluded the courts from interferin p
with the public acts of the Railway Com
mission as long as the commission ept
within the lawful limits of its powers
Other cases to the same effect were cited
and recommended to the perusal OF court
and counsel.
mo injunction can lie, in my opinion. I"
continued Mr.. Hayne, "since the court
can restrain criminal prosecutions only
1t is insufficient 10 show that law is un-
constitutional and invalid; it would be
furthermore necessary to show some ma
terial damage to the property before the
courts could intervene. In the case at bar
no such contention is made. In regard to
this principle we can find no conflict
among the cases in the United States Su-
preme Court, or even in the State courts.
for that matter. Whatever apparent lack
of concord there may be is only apparent
and not real A little study of these cases
is all that is required in order to arrive at
proper notion of the law governing this
present action"
Then followed cases upon cases, each
one cited being graced with sparkling
commentary.
"And now, your Honor" said the inde-
fatigable Hayne, II have just two more
points to which desire to invite your at
tention.'
"Only two more?" asked the Judge. as
though imagining that his ears deceived
him.
Only two," assented Mr.. Hayne.
WELL, said the Judge, I'VE will hear
them on Tuesday"
And | solemnly promise to finish on
Tuesday, said Mr.. Hayne, whereat the
Judge and they that were in the court
room marveled, saying:
Truly Hayne is about to finish his
argument"