Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1897-08-06
AGAINST The INJUNCTION.
judge Palmer Closes For the State in
the Railroad Law Case.


Judge Palmer made the closing argu
ment for the commission. The Judg
made very strong argument for the Law
with which his name is so intimatel,
associated. His argument was briefly al
follows:
First-That the act approved Febru
ary 8, 1907, If it did not go into effec
until July l. 1897, still for the purpose
of notice to all persons whose interests
were affected by the act, it was opera
tive so far as to require such persons te
take notice of its provisions.
Second-That conceding tor the argu
July l, if there is no Inconsistency be-
tween the provisions of section 20, the
first requiring ten days notice to be
published before the publication of the
original schedule of maximum rates, and
the other provisions of said section
that in any event the original sched'
ules Of rates and classification of freights
on all lines of railroads in South Dakota
should be fixed and shall go into effect
on the first day of July, 1897 The
last provision being in the nature of a
provlso, is the latest expression of the
| legislative will and must control. And
| if found by the court TO be inconsistent
with the purview or preceding provision,
namely: that relating to notice, must 60
down; and that it was the duty of the
| commissioners and that they had perfect
authority under the previous provisions
of the code to advertise the meeting and
hearing the represen tatlves of the trans
portation companies and all other per-
sons as they did do from the 2lst day Of
June to the 1st day of July, as contem-
plated by the act. And hearing the
railroad representatives as they did, all
appearing before the commission at the
time advertised they had been accorded
all the privileges contemplated by the
act and could not be heard to complain.
Third-That the board of commission
ers had the power independent of the act
Of February 3, 1897, to provide tor the
hearing and perform all of the duties
contemplated by the act of February,
1907, relating to the advertising and hear
lngs before the adoption Of the schedule
of maximum rates.
Fourth-That the power conferred
upon the board of railroad commissioners
was to inform themselves and ascertain
what would be a just and fair maximum
schedule of freight and passenger rates.
That in the exercise Of such authority
they were clothed with discretionary
powers; that they were in the exercise of
such authority and had not completed
their investigation or determined upon
any schedule of rates at the time the in.
junction was served in the six railroad
COMP anies which were complainants in
the actions. That not having reached a
conclusion, nor completed their lnvestl-
cation, nor fully exercised and completed
their discretionary powers. no injunction
will lie to restrain their proceedings.
| Fifth-That the action while in form
proceeding against the board of railroad
commissioners by name was in fact
proceeding Instituted by residents of
| foreign jurisdiction against the state
itself; and was therefore in conflict with
article eleven of the amendment TO the
constitution OF the United States prohib-
| itlng the court from maintaining any
action of this character by nonresident
against the state of South Dakota, and
for this reason the court had no Jurisdic'
ton and could not issue temporary in
junction.
Sxth-That the complainants or some
of them admit by their bill Of complaint
that if the commissioners should put in
rate with the reduction which COM
plainants say was threatened, still at
that reduction it appears upon the face
Of the complaint, the complalnants
would derive some revenue over and
above operating expenses and taxes and
that no court has held that the courts
will interfere where it appears upon the
face of the complaint thai any revenue
however slight is in fact received in ex-
cess of the above expenditures.
MONEY TO LOAN