The times., 1898-08-05
Not an Unusual Experience.

accordance with which the business of
the company has been conducted.
Not an Unusual Experience
1t is not an unusual thing. in our ex-
perience TO see one set of directors OF
a corpora ton turned out. and their places
filed by others-not always nor generally
upon the ground of dishonesty; but be-
cause the stockholders have come to
distrust the wisdom of the past manage
ment; although the company'S books may
appear 10 have been kept in perfectly
regular manner. according to the meth
DDS of its former directors. And If
such distrust may reasonably exist in
the minds of those who have been legally
entitled at any time. TO examine the
books of the company, how can IL be ex-
pected that strangers, and especially
courts of justice, who are charged with
the high duty of guarding the rights OF
the public against undue and oppres-
sive exactions for public services. are
TO accept the mere ex parte statements or
those whose conduct may be the sub
ject OF investigation? In the words OF
Justice Brewer. in Chicago V. Wellman.
143 L. S. 3i5 when speaking of state
ments presented by railroad company
in a similar Investigation
''Of what do these operating expenses
consist? Are they made up, partially OF
extravagant salaries, fifty 10 one num-
dred thousand dollars TO the president,
and in like proportion to subordinate Of
| fcers? Surely before the courts are called
upon 10 adjudge an act of the legislature
fixing the maximum passenger rates Tor
railroad companies TO be unconstitution-
al on the ground that its enforcement
would prevent the stockholders from re-
| ceiving any dividends on their invest
ments, or the bondholders any interest on
| their loans they should be fully advised
| as to what is done with the receipts and
| earnings of the company; for If advised,
| It might clearly appear that a prudent
| and honest management would. within
| the rates prescribed. secure TO the bond
! holders their interest, and 20 the stock
| holders reasonable dividends"
| The presumption in favor of the consti-
| tutionality of this statute might De dit-
| ferently viewed If, on its face IL appeared
| that the bill had never been approved oy
the President; or had been signed oy MIN
| after the adjournment of Congress, or
| that the enacting clause had been omitted
| by a blunder.
| A somewhat modified view might be
| taken if the act. in terms, had required
| the service to be rendered by the COM
| pany without any compensation at all.
| R,rt in the case at bar the statute ap-
| pears on its face to be as regular In FORM
| as the provision in the act of June .,
1896. reducing the price OF gas in WASH
| ington and Georgetown.
| Is in Regular Form.
| Or as the words of the proviso TO sec
1 tion II of the act of the 10th of June. 1Sa6.
| extending the routes of the Eckiugton and
Belt Railways. which briefly declares,
provided, that within the limits Of the
District of Columbia six tickets shall be
sold for % cents" The constitutionaiity
| of such statutes, entirely regular in form,
| upon the grounds here indicated, can only
be attacked by matter in pa $. which mus
rise to the rank of evidence, unobjeotion
able in form and substance
In these reasons l am compelled on the
presentation of the case to disregard the
attack upon the constitutionality OF the
clause before me, and to examine the ap
pIication for the injunction in the forms
in which it Is asked upon the assump-
ton that the enactment is valid.
The defendants have urged the hard
ship that may result to them, If tenn
porary injunction shall issue, by which
they will be compelled to furnish teje-
phone service until the further hearing of
|
compensation which they aver will be en-
tirely unremunerative. On the other
hand, the complainants insist that they
and the great body of the business pub
lie who are similarly situated, will be Sc.
riously injured in their business and COM
fort if the injunction shall be refused
and they are thus denied the benefits OF
the statute which was passed for the
ease of the people, until the testimony
shall have been taken and the case pre-
sented to the court upon final hearing.
In the familiar language of the authori-
ties: while considerations of the rela-
!, tive hardships and Inconvenience to the
!. respective parties by granting or with
| holding the relief may properly be taker
, into account in determining the appli.
cation. yet where the right is established
/ and the violation clear. neither consider
alton of public or private Inconvenience
or of hardship TO the defendant. will pre-
Vent the court from interfering. - Higf
| on injunctions, Sec. 962.
The Subscribers Suffer Most.
If the case were less clear and 1 fel
: justified in baSing my action upon con
| siderations Of relative hardships l should
5 grant the writ For it seems plain t.
me that the defendant who will be pro
tected by adequate injunction bond, re
! | sponsible for the difference between tn,
statutory and THE former rates In th
f | event of the injunction being dissolved
will suffer less from the granting of tn
: injunction than the great number of sub
) scriberS to the telephones, who would b
, | without adequate remedy for the inter