The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-12-05
QUASHEO IN THE
DISTRICT COURT
Several Western Roads Violate the
Law and Get Away.
OPINION BY JUDGE PHILIPS
ELKINS ACT CANNOT BE MADE
RETROACTIVE.

II ANsAs CITY. Dec. Judge
n John F. Phillips, in the Unit
ed states district court for
the western district Of Missouri.
today delivered an opinion hold
ing that his court was without iuris-
dietion in the cases brought here by
The federal government charging the
Missouri Pacific. the Atchison, Topeka
d Santa Fe and other railways with
giving rebates on shipments of salt in
kansas and on coal in Colorado. and
other products, in violation OF the Ell
Klns act. The motion of the railways
TO quasn the proceedings was granted.
Cited for Contempt.
ON March %, 1902, at the instigatlon
of the attorney generals office at
Washington, Judge Philips granted a
temporary order restraining the Mis-
souri, Pacific, the Santa Fe, the Chi
cago & Alton the Burlington. and the
Rock Island Railway companies from
giving alleged rebates on various prod
ucts. Last summer NJ. d. Purdy, as
slstant attorney general, brought adj
dluonal proceedings, citing the officials
OF the railways named for contempt. in
the allegation that they had violated
the courts order in continuing to give
rebates. The contempt proceedings
We're argued in Judge Philips court on
Nov is, when the attorneys for the
railways moved that the proceedings
be quashed, claiming that the court
was without jurisdiction.
Judge Philips Opinion.
The grounds of the decision in judge
Philips opinion today are substantially
as follows:
The original bill of complaint. on
which the restraining order was grant
ed March %, 1902 was filed 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 conten-
ton of the attorney general that the
United States had a right to resort 10
the United States circuit court in equity
10 carry out the policy of the inter-
state commerce law and to enjoin rail-
roads generally from violating It.
Supreme Court Decision.
But after the temporary restraining
order was made, and after the femur
rer to the original bill was argued and
submitted, the supreme court OF the
United States, in the case of Missouri
Pacific Railway company vs. United
states. 1s9th United States reports. de-
cided 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 Mis-
souri, the court was without jurisdiction
to make it: and, therefore, the defend
ant could not be held - be in contempt
of the court for violating an order
which it was without Jurisdiction to
make.
Second. while what is known as the
Elkins act, passed by congress in Feb
ruary. 1903, authorized such a proceed
ing by the United States district at
tOrney OF the jurisdiction where the Of
Tense was committed, this act being
passed nearly a year after the restraint
ing order of March % 1902. had no
retroactive operation so as 20 validate
that order