The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-15
rNCoNsrsrENr IN EITHER EVENT.

define, his position and attitude witn reference to the case of the Birmins . ham Railway Light and Power Compa- ny. pending before the Railroad Com mission of Alabama.
 The Advertiser simply stated the facts in its editorial of the 18th, as shown from the record of the Commis- sion. and as obtained from the history of this case. In the first place, MT. Conner, so The Advertiser is informed by the Associate Commissioners, did not know what the opinion was, which Associate Commissioner Sanders had prepared and was in the act of reading at the last meeting when interrupted by MT. Conner with the suggestion that the case be dropped by the Commis sion. If this opinion should prove to be favorable to. the contention that the Birmingham Railway Light and Pow CT Company is railroad and subject to the Jurisdiction of the Commission, then MT. Conner has placed himself in the attitude of preventing the promul- gation of such an opinion with which he is supposed to agree. If. upon the other hand. it was adverse to the prop osition that said Birmingham Street Railway was not subject to the juris- diction of the Commission, then Mir. Conner is in the attitude of preventing the case from being dropped by the Commission which he suggested should be done at the last meeting. In either event, the position of MT. Conner IS singularly inconsistent. In fact. 1t is +. I~~. .tlxy x.rl,a dnaE want in the matter. If, as he says, the case was not brought before the Com hission by himself, but by other par ties, then the parties who brought the case certainly owe it to the Commis- sion to have their side represented. or at least that a statement be made set ting out the reason why the Railroad Commission should assume Jurisdiction of this street railway
 MT. Conner says in his letter that "I do not think it right that the Railroad Commission should give it's indorse- ment to the Birmingham Railway Light and Power Company's claim that 1t was not 8 railroad. and so I moved that the case be simply dropped from our docket" MT. Conner admits that at the former meeting he expressed himself as being satisfied, after hear ing the argument of MT. Tillman, and he then moved to dismiss the case, to which the other Commissioners object ed. Now he says, that he is not will ing that the Commission give its in- dorsement to that proposition, and even goes so far as to want the Governor to furnish an attorney to prosecute the case brought by certain parties against the Birmingham Railway Light and Power Company. The Ad- vertiser is curious to know exactly what Mir. Corners position really is in this matter. If he favors taking juris- diction over the Birmingham Railway Light and Bower Company, and feels that it is his duty to do so, what req son is there for his desiring to drop the case? Is it that politics have any thing to do with it? It occurs to The Advertiser that Mir. Conner is attempt ing to ride two horses, each going in opposite directions.
 MT. Conner says in his letter also that questions of this kind and impor- tance should be passed upon by the State authorities, so with that intent I referred it to the Governor" This is a singular proposition; the Railroad Com mission is created especially for, and charged with, the duty of passing upon such questions. no other branch of government has any authority or juris- diction over the subject whatever Why then should MT. Conner seek to shirk the responsibility in this case and place it upon some other State official? Would MT. Conner think of doing this if the interest of some railroad was in- volved instead of the Birmingham Rail way Light and Power Company? MT Conner knows full we'll that there is no provision in the law for the appoint ment of an attorney to represent par ties before the Railroad Commission who have cases against railroads. He has been so told by both the Associate Commissioners. It follows, therefore, that this effort of Mir Conner seems to be in the nature of a grand stand
 
 MT. Conner is acting in a quasi judi cial capacity. It is his duty to decide this case on its merits fully, and i'm partially, and no more obligation rests upon him to see that the parties mak- ing this complaint have a lawyer than would rest upon him to see that the Birmingham Railway Light and Power Company had lawyer. It is his busi- ness to decide cases that come before him, and not to furnish lawyers for either party to the cause at issue before reason of this particular case coming before him at this time, he should have the courage to face it, and not attempt to shift the responsibility upon the shoulders of any other State official
 The Advertiser desires to say that there is nothing personal in this criti- cism. but MT. Conner is a public official and his acts as such are open to criti- clsm. He has not been slow to criti- else the acts of other State officials, and in this instance he has certainly shown by his acts that he is not infal- lible and is as subject to influence by "environment" as other public officials, especially when his own political in terests are involved.
 
 The Advertiser in publishing list