Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1898-09-22

the pendency Of the appeal
There had been . III. 900 bond required b,
Judge Foster As condition TO the granting o
the restraining orders and the decree also con
tsins On Ingenious olsuse postponins actions Of
claims for which that bond was liable unit
this case Is finally determined on appeal
II would take 0 very credulous and gullibl,
man to believe that Judge Thsyer would hav'
signed such decree until 1t was consented t,
BY the honorable attorney general
RIGHTS OF SHIPPERS CONCEDED AWAY
And II Is made clear and evident that the at
torney general deliberately conceded away tn,
rights Of the people and stock shippers Of th'
state because 1t stands uncontradicted on tht
records OF the United States court
In the stipulation Of October 7, as originally
prepared, there was q fifth paragraph subse,
Quently marked out by pencil and pen mark.
across It, When this paragraph was so elimi-
mated does not appear, but 1t accounts for the
clause stricken out Of the order Of October by
Judge Foster, and the clause which remains In
the final decree by Judge Thayer 1t reads:
Fifth-Pendlng the proceedings aforesaid
and until the decree by the court to which the
appeals may be taken the restra lining orders
heretofote granted In these cases shall be con-
tinued In full force and effect and the defendant
Boyle attorney general shall not In case the de-
cree OF this court be adverse TO the plaintiffs OF
either Of them take any proceedings whatever
to enforce the act Of tho legislature OF the state
OF Kansas Of March 3D. 1891 complained Of In
said bills either by criminal proceedings there
unto or by suit for penalties mentioned In said
act or otherwise. And the plaintiff shall give
supersedeas bond with sureties to be APP
proved by the Judge who may render said de-
cree In the penalty sum Of - conditioned
according to law and said decree shall by prop
or clause therein provide for said bond
The attorneys for the stock yards company
would not have drawn up such stipulation
unless some verbal agreement had preceded it,,
and the orders Of October9 would not have con-
tained the provision for continuing the re-
strainlng order II Mr. Boyle had not agreed
that they should be continued And the orders
Of October Is in the final decree is too circum-
stantially and specifically framed not to have
had an adverse mind to the stock yards law
yers suggesting and concerning in Its phrase
o.ogy. Foot prints are not necessary foi The
Election Of on alien presence on all occasions
The attorney general evidently felt his remis-
less though he could not see any record Of It,
or Immediately the final decree was signed he
prepared motion, not TO set aside and strike
out, but for review and modification OF so
much Of the final decree herein as purports to
restore and continue in force the Injunction
etc.
Judge Thayer by an Endorsement on the
motion, without date, and which has not been
entered on the journals Of the court, 0verruled
the motion as Of the day II was filed. "
Whether that Endorsement was made October
%, the day Judge Thayer signed the final de-
cree, though the motion was not filed until Oc-
tober 30. or on November |. the date that the
notice attached to the motion fixed for Its
hearing, or at some later date Is immaterial
On October 80, 1897, Judge Horton, one Of the
attorneys for the stock yards company or Its
stockholders, placed on file his aidavit which
has not been controverted by anything on Ale
In these cases and Is apparently the only EVIL
dence In support or in opposition to the mo-
ton which could have been considered by
Judge Thayer at the time he overruled the mo-
ton
That affidavit Is consistent with the erased
clause OF the stipulation. 1t Is consistent with
the erased clauses OF Judge Fosters orders; 1t
is consistent with the final decree; 1t is uncon-
tradlcted on the record II not true why was
IL not controversial Ana why was IL permit
TED That Judge Thayer overruled the motion ~
oil the uay u was hieu ana no record haae Vi
Tie orderf
inc alildavlt OF Judge Horton anu the certlh-
cate OF the clerk OF the United States court
that no alidavit OF any one cohtroVertlhg any
OF the allegations IN SAID aihuaVlt mas ever
been hled In SAID causes appear pelow'
JUDGE HORIZONS AFFIDAVIT.
upon oath deposes ana says that ne Is one OF
the solicitors Tor the compartments IN the ABOVE
entitled case that ne was present IN 81 raul
MINI, on thursday OctoDer 7, ~ the Time inc
stipulation between the parties herein OF that
date concerning the maj nearing OF tne lore-
going suits was signed ana considered by Judge
San0orn, United states circuit Judge OF the
Eighth judicial circuit, ana winch salo stlpula-
tion was afterwards duly hled IN THIS court IN
this cause on Saturday, october lssf; ana
this afilant says that OF the time that SAID writ
"N' 1850 -
ant, L. Boyle attorney general, In the pres
ence OF Judge Sanborn and aiilant' and also OF
MT wallace Pratt ana MI, D. NJ WoolWorth'
then and there stated That the status quo OF the
foregoing cases would DO continued until the
hearing had before Judge Thayer Tor maj
decree, agreed upon by the parties 10 De
had on Monday October IL, ls91, at Two
o'clock p m, and that in the mean
time the said Ia C. Boyle, as attorney general
would not enforce or attempt to enforce the
new rates prescribed by the act OF the Kansas
legislature OF March B. 1877, relating to stock
yards, and complained OF in said bills OF COM
plant filed herein, and thereafter when an Or
der was made by Hon & & Foster ut Topeka
Kan, on Saturday October D. ls0', to carry into
effect the written stipulation OF the parties
filed on said date for final hearing OF said
causes, 1t was then and there stated by David
Martin, one of the solicitors OF the said Louis
Boyle, that l. c. Boyle, attorney general,
had agreed not to enforce the rates and charges
fixed by said Kansas statute Of March 3, 1897,
until the hearing OF said cases before Judges
Thayer and Foster as agreed to-