The Advocate and news., 1898-10-12
Judge Martin
Speaks Out.
Ex-Chlef Justice David Martin Gives
Ills Opinion on the Austin Re-
publican Letter About the
Stock Yards Cases.
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

ticed that an attack had been made on
Attorney General Boyle's work in the
stock yards case. He said that he had.
"HaVe you ever been misled," he con-
tinued, "by an attractive headline and
commencement, into reading most OF a
patent medicine advertisement before
discovering It's true character and throw
ing aside the newspaper in disgust?
Such was my first impression on reading
the long article Of Mr.. Austin on the
stock yards case. 1t starts off as legal
criticism, only to end in a political dla-
tribe against an able and efficient public
officer, who is a candidate for re-elec-
ton upon a ticket evidently not of the
critics choice"
what is your opinion about its mer-
its?"
"A mere lawyer is hardly justifable
in taking public notice Of a political ef-
fusion, although written in the guise OF
O. legal criticism, and | have so far
treated 1t as part Of the campaign clap
trap of the day; but as have been asso-
ciated with the Attorney General in this
litigation, and Mr.. Austln's article has
been extensively published, 1t may be a
duty to the Attorney General and to my
self to speak out when asked about the
merits of the article, and l will do 80
briefly.
"The criticism embraces three points
and three only:
"Flrst-That the Attorney Cen
eral ought not to have agreed at st,
%. tkn -
the cases that the suits brought by
the two stockholders were not colu-
sive for the purpose Of comforting
jurisdiction upon the federal courts.
"Second-That the Attorney Cen
eral ought not to have dessted from
the enforcement OF the stock yards
law from October 7th until the hear
ing before Judges Thayer and FOs-
ter, which was set for October 1S,
1897.
"Third-That the Attorney Gen.
eral ought to have had the case de-
cided by the Supreme court of the
United States before this time.
"The first point touches only the COM
potency of the complaining stockholders
as suitors We suggested this point on
the first preliminary hearing, but did
not regard 1t of much Importance. /
think the stock yards company should
have been the complainant, although
Kansas corporation for as federal Ques-
tions were involved, the jurisdiction OF
the court did not depend upon diverse
citizenship. II the stockholders had no
right to test the validity Of the law, GER
tainly the stock yards company had If
the court had sustained the point, which
Mr.. Austin deems so important, one of
two things, resulting in nothing better
than delay, would have taken place,
namely, the stockholders bills would
have been dismissed, and one action for
all would have been brought by the stock
yards company; or the court would have
permitted the amendment Of the bills
by the substition Of the stock yards
company as complainant The stipula-
tion on this point was entered into at
st. Paul after all the evidence had been
taken, and after the decision of the case
In our favor by Judge Foster on the
masters report. A dismissal of the
stockholders bills at that time would
have settled nothing except that they
were not the proper parties to bring the
suit, and all the labor done, expense in
Cured and advantage gained by the
State would have been lost The failure
of the suit by the stockholders would
have been no bar to suit by the stock
yards company. II was interested to
the extent Of about 100000 per annum
in having the law declared invalid, and
nobody could reasonably expect that it
would abandon Its undoubted right to
challenge its validity.
THE second point is Of no more merit
than the first On October 4, Judge Fos-
ter decided the case in our favor on the
preliminary hearing for an injunction,
and dissolved the temporary restraining
orders granted at the beginning Of the
suits; but for reasons over which neither