Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1897-09-02
THE INJUNCTION ARGUED
THE POWER OF THE RAILROAD
COMMISSIONERS ARGUED.
Both Sides Oftho Case are Presented Be-
fore Judge Randolph at EmporIA..-
The Railroads Combined and Fought
tho Injunction Together. The Judges
Ruling.


cation for injunction against the Atchi-
son, Topeka & Santa Fe, Missouri Pa
cific and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas
made in the name of the state before
Judge Randolph, of this district, were
consolidated, and the fight was made
on all three cases at once.
The effect of the consolidation simply
Is to give the attorneys for all the
roads interested a chance to make a
fight together, as the result would have
been the same if they had contested
the case separately, A victory for the
state would be followed with other in
junction proceedings, and victory for
the railroads would mean that further
proceedings along the line of injunc-
ton would be stopped.
The application heard yesterday is
for temporary restraining order to
prevent the railroads from charging
more for handling live stock than they
charged under the old car load rates.
That the dollars per 100 pound rate put
into effect August 10 is higher than the
old rate is practically conceded by the
railroad companies, no evidence to the
contrary having been offered at the
hearing before the state board of rail
road commissioners in Topeka, and
none has been offered here.
The railroads, in fact, are not anxious
to have that question passed upon, for
their plan of campaign here has been
to demur, and consequently let the
whole question turn on the law in the
case, without offering syllable Of evi'
dence.
The state is provided with evidence,
but thus far there is no prospect that
it will have chance to use it.
Judge Randolph was out of town
when the lawyers, railroad men and
cattlemen arrived, but returned at 4
o'clock. When he appeared on the
bench the court house was packed.
The railroad lawyers, surrounded by
the traffic managers and freight agents,
almost filed the space within the bar
THE COURT ROOM PACKED.
B. P. Waggener, of the Missouri Pa
cific, A. A. Hurd, of the Atchison, To-
peka & Santa Fe, w. F. Evans, of the
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, and T.
N. Sedgwick, of the Missouri, Kansas
& Texas, and David Palmer, of the st.
Louis & San francisco, managed the
legal fight for the railroads. ]. G. Lin
coin, of the Missouri Pacific, c r. Hud-
son, of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa
Fe, E. G. Newman, of the Missouri Pa
cifc and j. B. Trimble, of the st. Louis
g. San Francisco were present as ex-
perts on behalf of the traffic depart
ments of their respective roads, and
suggestions to their lawyers. T. L.
Davis and ]. G. Waters assisted Attor-
ney General Boyle. Without the rail
were the railroad commissioners and
representatives of the cattlemen' asso-
Citations of Lyon; Chase, Butler and
Greenwood counties. They crowded
the benches and stood in the aisles
showing that they had fulfilled their
promise that 100 cattlemen would be
present at the hearing. Most of them
were men past middle age with boards,
some of them grey. They represented
in the aggregate several millions in
vested in the stock growing and feed
ing industry.
B. P Waggener, so soon as the court
announced that it was ready, made a
preliminary statement that an agree
ment had been made between the con-
tending sides that the entire order of
the board of April, 1886, should be in
corporated in the petition.
Originally only that part which says
that the companies shall not change
feOm the old car load rates to the per
hundred pounds rate appeared The
full order shows that it had been the
Intention of tho board that a subse-
quent order should be made after the
board should have taken time to con-
slider the matter. No such order ever
has been made.
WAGGENER SPEAKS FOR THE RAILROADS.
On the part of the railroads, Mr..
Waggener said that it was decided to
make the objection that the petition as
amended did not state cause of ac-
ton. Then he set about in support of
his demurrer to demonstrate that the
state had no direct interest in the case,
and that the attorney general was ex-
eeeding his duties when he asked for
the injunction, injunction being an
equity remedy. Waggener supported
his argument with decisions, which
say that when the statute gives an ade-
quate remedy at law the injured per-
son must confine himself to the statute
remedy. The state, he said, had no in
terest in the case, that the petition
showed that to be fact, that the oGly
persons who could be injured would be
the shippers who already had remedy