Omaha daily bee., 1898-03-08

OF the law tife'nis lines would have earned
a profit, while the branch lines would not.
@. In deternbiulhg whether this profit were
sufficient the court apportioned the bonded
Indebtedness freai and fictitious) OF the en-
tire mileage UPON the mileage OF Nebraska.
and found the resulting net profit insult
clent to pay interest on this bonded debt
Z. The courtc held that in determining the
reasonablenesso of the reduction OF rates
fixed by law )wepm must exclude from consd-
Grafton the ptoftt from interstate business,
the profits f6na'i passenger business, the
profits from local business In other states.
but should consider what would be the eff
feet on the gross income Of the companies II
a reduction should be made to like rate in
other states and by congress on interstate
business so as to affect in similar degree
the whole business OF the companies.
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
To controvert the conclusions summarized
In the foregoing. the state of Nebraska.
through its attorneys, appealed the whole
case to the supreme court OF the United
States. The legislature Of 1895 not only au-
thorized the appeal, but appropriated the
funds to pay the necessary expenses attor-
neys' fees, etc. The law authorizing the ap-
peal was approved April 5. 1895, and John l..
Webster OF Omaha employed to prosecute the
case TO an issue. On August 5, 1895. the
case was docketed In the supreme court OF
the United States. On December 16, 1895,
case. The motion was sustained and the
case set down for hearing and argued on
March 4, 1896. On April 20, 1896, the case
was restored to the docket and reargument
ordered. November 80 the attorneys for the
state filed a motion to have the case ad
vanced, but the court overruled it, at the
same time giving leave to renew the motion
on the third Monday In January, 1897. Moth
ing was done in the case in the months in
tervening from April 20 until November 30.
The court was In session until May 25 but
the attorneys for the state made no effort to
have the case advanced, so that 1t was not
finally reached until November 80, as above
stated. The case might have been advanced
much sooner but for the fact that the State
Board of Transportation interfered in the
management of the case to the extent or
adopting a resolution authorizing Attorney
General Churchill to enter into a stipulation
with the attorneys for the railroads agreeing
to postpone the motion for Advancement until
the third Monday in January. The present
attorney general, c. ]. Smyth, In an opinion
to the legislature submitted on March "a
last believes that the case would have been
settled much sooner had 1t not been for such
interference.
However, the state made the best OF its
bargain and through the efforts OF the at
torneys the case was set for reargument on
April of the present year. On that date the
case was argued by John l.. Webster and w.
| j. Bryan The latter had never been asso-
ciated with the counsel for the state, but was
| informally invited to participate in the fipal
, proceedings by Attorney General Smyth and
Governor Holcomb. Some amusing comment
| was made from the fact that under the rigid
| rules of the supreme court of the United
States the time allotted to the state was
| entirely consumed by Mr.. Webster and Mr..
! Bryan, and thus Attorney General Smyth was
shut out entirely from making any argument
in matter in which he had taken SO much
interest.