The pioneer press. (Miller, Hand County, S.D.) 1893-190?, 1897-09-16
The Judges Opinion.

The Judges Opinion.
an regard to the motion for a temper
.ary Injunction in the several cases, which
has been argued before this court, it is
perhaps unnecessary to say that no person
feels more keenly the responsibility which
is imposed by law upon the court in mat
tiers Of this kind. 1t needs no argument
on the part of counsel in order that the
court shall fully appreciate the delicacy
OF the position in which the court is
placed, when it is asked to restrain by a
judicial writ the contemplated action of
state officers. But, however distasteful
the duty may be for the presiding judge,
if the duty is found to exist and the
showing made is such that in the con-
scientious discharge Of the duties of the
pres ding judge, it is the opinion that it
ought TO act, then it is it's duty to act in
the matter so as to preserve the rights
Of the parties, so far as possible, and SO
far as the presiding judge of this court in
the holding of this court is concerned, it
will perform that duty regardless of con-
sequences, in any matter which in the
opinion of the Judge it ought to act.
In regard 10 these cases which are now
pending before the court it is necessary
to consider some of the fundamental laws
of the country which in part and TO great
extent, control judiciary action. 1t was
thought proper by counsel in the argu-
ment of these motions, to call attention
to some fundamental principles of gov
rernment. That perhaps was proper, and
IL is also proper for the court to call at
tention to some other principles which are
of equal force. There were other remarks
made by counsel which i have fai'ed to
find any reason tor in an application or
this kind. They were such remarks as
might be used, if allowed to be used at
all, before a jury, and then only for the
purpose of inflamilg the prejudice OF a
jury. For what purpose they were used
on the hearing of this application l can
mot understand, unless it was for the pur-
pose Of being published.
I'VE are all governed by the constitu-
ton of the United States. BY its terms
it is the supreme law of the land. Moth
ing in the laws OF any state to the con-
;trary, Notwithstanding. That constitution
provides that no person, (which includes
a corporation) shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process
of law. 1t also provides that no state
shall deprive any person OF the equal
protection of the law. The people Of the
state Of South Dakota, when they asked
admission into the union of states, de-
cared in section 20 Of article 20 of their
Bill of Rights that South Dakota was an
inseparable part of the American union,
and the constitution of the United States
is the supreme law Of the land. This be-
ing the law that governs us, these railway
companies come before the court and by
a bill in equity framed so as to state the
case at least so as to entitle 1t to be tried
IN this court.
Il have no discression about the case
stated by these bills upon this hearing.
Under the decision of the United States
supreme court ano Of the honorable cir
cult justice for this circuit, which con-
troll me, these bis state a case, which
gives the compliments a standing in the
court Of equity for the purpose of trial.
The court is asked at the threshold of
these proceedings by these bills to grant
a temporary writ of injunction, so as to
preserve the rights of the parties until
THIS case can be tried. The issuing of a
temporary injunction in NJ way decides
any question in the case, ard it cannot in
a case of this kind be considered even an
animation, as to what the ruling and judg.
,ment OF the court will be upon the final
hearing.
-" Eases having Dcen DrOuRnt neIc
ana having been stated that the facts are
sufhcIent to give the court jurisdiction,
Tue next question is whether or not dam
age or inconvenience would be irreparable
" temporary injunction was not allowed.
NOW the court inquired OF counsel at the
opening argument what would be the re-
nu'C II the temporary injunction was not
aHoWed. To that question with due re-
sIpsct to the counsel for the dcfendants) l
tu not have a satisfactory answer or re-
urn, II this temporary injunction is not
etdhted, the rates viii go into effect, be-
eauSe 1t must be presumed that the com-
customers will do their duty and publish
fne schedule of rates. Now | am asked to
~ the defendants publish in advance OF
~ trial, and do all that the companies
cases.
mere IS another feature to the case
81 mat is in regard to the multiplicity
s"ts' Courts cannot speculate upon
fla, una the commissioners will do or what
~ citizens of the state may do. They
mus look to the question as to what il
t may be possible on the part of these par
"e' 70 do if the railway companies do moi