Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-12-04

SUIT UNDER THE ELKINS ACT.
Railroads We're Charged With Vlo-
lating Its Provisions by Grant
Ing Rebates.

Kansas City, Dec. 4.--Judge John +.
Philips, in the United States distIlcs
court for the Western district OF Mis-.
souri,. today delivered an opinion holding
that his court was without Jurisdiction
in the cases bought here by the federal
government charging the Missouri Pact
nc, the Atchson. Topeka & Santa Fa
and other railways with giving rebates
on shipments Of salt in Kansas and on
coal In Colorado and other products in
violation of the Elkins act The motion
of the railways to quash the proceed
ings was granted.
On March rs, 1902 at the instigation
of the attorney generals Office az Wash
ington, Judge Philips granted Il tempo
rary order restraining the Missouri Pa
ciiic, the Santa Fe, the Chicago & AL
ton the Burlington, and the Rock Is
land railway companies from giving al
legged rebates on various products. Last
summer NJ, D. Purdy, assistant attOr-
ney-general, brought additional pro-
ceedings, citing the officials Of the rail-
ways named for contempt, in the allie
cation that they had violated the courts
order in continuing 20 give rebates, Tie
contempt proceedings were argued IN
Judge Philips court on Nov Is, when
the attorneys for the railways moved
that the proceedings be quashed, claim
ing that the court was without jurisdic-
ton.
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
granted March 25 1902, was filed at
the instance of the attorney general or
the United States, predlcated on al
legged violations of the interstate com
merce law In granting rebates on ship
ments Of grain and packing house pro-
ducts from Kansas City 20 eastern
points, This suit was based upon the
conception of the attorney general That
the United States had right TO resort
TO the United States circuit court IN
equity to carry out the policy OF the
Interstate commerce law and to en-
Join railroads generally from violating
II. But after the temporary restrain
ing order was made, and after the de-
murrer 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. one hundred and eighty-ninth
United States reports, decided that the
United states circuit court had no ju-
risdiction to grant such relief, so. when
the restraining order was issued by the
United States circuit court for the
wtltern district of Missouri. the court
was without jurisdiction to make IT.
and, therefore, the defendant could not
be hel1 to b. in contempt OF the court
for violating an order which It was
with, ut jurisdiction TO make.
Second--While what Is known as the
Eikins act, passed by Congress in Feb
ruarv, 1903, authorized such proceed
ing by the United states district at
tcrney OF the jurisdiction where the Of
iAlse vas committed, this act being
passednearly a year after the restrain
ing order OF March %, 1902, had no re-
trt active operation so as TO validate
that order,
The concluding part of the courts
opinion Il as follows.
However reprehensible the conduct
of the defendant railroad companies,
df 1t be as alleged in these trans
actions). may have been, or however
much disposed this court may be to
compel obedience to its lawful man
oates, Il is persuaded that it is with
cut authority In this proceeding to draw
to IL the question involved, righttully
belonging to the jurisdiction OF the
United States circuit courts for the
districts OF Kansas and Colorado, This,
saith the law, is perpetual Injunction
upon the Judge, when called upon to
exert judicial power which he may not
disregard without standing In con-
tempt OF his own conscience