The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-05
wrrHour suRtspIcrIoN.
Judge Philips Grants Motion of Raii
 roads to Quash.

| roads to auash. | Kansas City. Mo, Dec. 4.-Judge John F. Phillips in the United States district court for the western district
 of Missouri today delivered an opinion | holding that his court was without | Jurisdiction in the cases brought here l by the federal government charging the Missouri Pacific, the Atchison. To- peka and Santa Fe and other railways with giving rebates on shipments on salt in Kansas and on coal in Colorado
 and other products in violation of the
 Elkins act. The motion of the rail-
 roads to quash tho proceedings was granted
 March 25. 1902, at the instigation of the attorney generals office at Wash ington, Judge Phillips granted a tenn porary order restraining the Missouri Pacific, the Sante Fe. the Chicago and Alton, the Burlington, and the Rock
 Island Railway Companies from giving alleged rebates on various products. Last summer M. D. Purdy. assistant at- torney general, brought additional pro- cedures citing the officials of the rail- ways named for contempt on the alle- gation that they had violated the
 courts order in continuing to give re- bates.
 The contempt proceedings were ar
 gued in Judge Phillips court on No
 vember IS, when the attorneys for the railways moved that the proceedings be
 quashed, claiming that the court was
 without Jurisdiction. Judge Phillips
 today in delivering his opinion. which
 sustained the motion of the railroads.
 was very lengthy and went into detail
 in covering the points involved.
 The grounds of the decision predi-
 cated in the opinion are substantially
 as follows:
 The original bill of complaint on
 N~.a a-AA yuyau urr1 1V.t-
 ed March 25. 1902. was hled at the in-
 stance of the attorney general of the
 United States. predicated on alleged
 violations of the Interstate Commerce
 law in granting rebates on shipments
 of grain and packing house products
 from Kansas City to eastern points. This suit was based upon the concep-
 tion of the attorney general that the
 United States had a right to resort to the United States circuit court In equi- ty to carry out the policy of the h. terstate Commerce law and to enjoin railroads generally from violating It.
 But after the temporary restraining order was made and after the demurrer to the ogiginal bill was argued and submitted to the supreme court of the United States in the case of the Mis- souri Pacific Railway company vs. Uni- ted States, 1S9th United States reports decided that the United States circuit court had no Jurisdiction to grant such relief: so when the restraining order was issued by the United States circuit court for the Western district of Missouri, the court was without to make 1t; and therefore the defendant could not be held to De l In contempt of court for violating an | order which it was without jurisdiction | to make.
 Second; while what is knonw as the | Elkins act, passed by Congress in Feb ruary 1903, authorized such a proceed | Ing by the United States district att torney of the Jurisdiction where the 1ffense was committed. this act being | passed nearly a year after the restrain nR order of March 25. 1902. had no operation so as to validate hat order. And while the original suit continued in force by an amend nent. thereof or summary motion on he part of the United States attorney | ,IIeging that the railway company | vas then continuing to grant rebates if the character mentioned in the origi- ,al bill; yet. no such action was taken " the district attorney.
 But it would not have had a retroac- i've effect so as to validate the origi- ,al injunction order. And, furthermore, he offense charged in the information Or contempt is the alleged granting if rebates by the defendant railroad company on the commodity of salt ship ned from Hutchinson. Kansas. a year ,r more after the granting of the tenn ,orary restraining order and on sub ect matter. of commerce entirely dd- erent from that covered by the re- trainfng order--an offense committed n inc Jurisdiction of the United States ,ircuit court of Kansas and which