The Roanoke daily times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1895-1897, 1896-08-19
PLEADING FOR THE SOUTHERN
ARGUMENT IN THE CELEBRATED
INJUNCTION CASE.
Mr.. Smythe Makes Very Good Point
Against the Recent Cut by the Sea-
board Air Line-The Last Two Re-
ports of the Condition of That Road
Show an Excess of Expenditures Over
Receipts.

Receipts.
Greenville, S. c., August 1S.-Mr.
Smythe resumed his argument this morn
ing in the injunction case before Judge
Simonton and occupied the time of the
court until 4:30 O'Clock this afternoon.
lie continued the argument that the
court had jurisdiction of all parties neces-
sary to the suit The component parts of
the Seaboard Air Line had answered, Mr.
Scott had answered and also Mr.. Haines,
OF the Southern States Freight Associa.
tion He cared nothing for the Ocean
steamship Company. The president of
the Central railway had been served
within this jurisdiction and was not an
indispensable party to the case The bill
sets out the fact that the road bringing
the suit is in the hands of the court. The
issue sets up violation of the federal
constitution, violation of the Interstate
commerce act and then it is charged that
there was combination or conspiracy
and also the cutting of rates-a public
nulsance-because of it's interference with
the public business and the mails The
complainant was entitled to come into
TINS court OF equity and preserve them
selves and prevent the forfeiture of their
charter. All roads are entitled to rea-
sonable rates, reasonable to the roads and
reasonable to the public.
III the compla' nant showed an unrea-
sonableness in the rates fixed by sweeping
reductions of defendants, then he was
entitled to ask relief. This is n common
law right. He referred to authorities
furnished by Mr. King, attorney of the
Seaboard Air Line, and drew conclusions
from them favorable to his complaint
lie then discussed the different relations
OF railroads and steamships. The latter
are not embraced within the terms of
duties and powers of the interstate COM
merce commission and the public does
not contribute to their establishments
They are not fixed and permanent in their
nature as are railroads and the same rules
Will not apply to both. Courts take the
position that officers of road are looked
upon as legal agents and when it is found
that the u. c. and n. is operated by the
Seaboard then it is clear that the officers
OF the lessee are agents of the lesser road.
lie cited numerous authorities to show
That this position was sustained by com
mon and statute law. He read an eX-
tract from decision by Lord Eden
which said that it was better to go as far
toward justice as possible rather than
deny it altogether because of the newness
of the remedy.
He argued that this was not a new
remedy but possibly new application.
state and federal courts have for years
held to the maxim that an injunction
would lie to prevent irredeemable wrong
and that was the situation here-one rail
road seeking to put in force a rate which
would certainly result in bankruptcy for
itself or its competitor. If it was not
claimed that the public would not suffer
he called attention of the court to the
fact that many roads were unable to keep
in running condition by the sale of receiv.
ers' certificates and. if these could not be
sold then would the public feel the annoy.
ance.
"Your HONOR he said, "knows that
you would not allow a railroad to be torn
up. 1t gets its franchise and rights in
consideration of its continuing in opera
ton and you cannot allow a railroad to
operate at such a tariff of rates as would
finally disrupt itself or other roads,
The petitioner asked that his road he
protected from wrong sought to lie in
flicted upon it. He read authorities to
show that the courts are practically trus-
tees for roads under receivership. This
court is strong enough to restrain the
railroad commissioner and strong enough
to restrain the railroad itself. If the
committee had established these rates
then the court would certainly have no
hesitancy in enjoining the commission
err; and why net go direct to the source in
this emergency and enjoin the railroad?
The Legislature cannot establish ruinous
rates, the committee cannot, but the Sea-
board Air Line is. trying to do it and they
say the courts cannot interfere. The
court, he said, is not traffic manager to
fix rates, but it is within the province of
the courts, and the courts alone, to pass
upon the unreasonableness of the rates
He took up the report of the railroad
commissioner and showed that in 1894
and 1879 there was deficit in the income
of the Seaboard, and yet that company
claimed that it was able to make n cut.
This was untrue. He'referred to Senator
Tlllman's reference to government by
injunction" and cited the case of the
courts of South Carolina being called
upon not long ago to restrain the Central
Railroad of Georgia from its proposed
operation of the Port Royal road, the
State asking for injunction on the ground
that such action would crush COMPETE
tion. Nearly sixty years ago the prnci-
pie was laid down in South Carolina that
railroad is a public highway and must
be guarded and protected. This same
Seaboard road had asked that rates on
fertilizers be enjoined as too low and the
courts granted it. While the 33 1-3 cut
rate was in operation, the long and short
haul rule was openly violated. When
the Seaboard made the cut this clause was