Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-06-17
U. S. Judge MCPHERSON Decides
He Has Jurisdiction Over
Question Involved.
LAW SHOULD BE PUT IN FORCE
Whether Temporary Injunction
Shall be Issued to be Decided
A Week or More Hence.
400 Late for States to Talk About Die
tating to Government or Riding
Down Its Courts.

Eansas City, June I7.--Judge Smith
Mcpherson of Red Oak, Iowa, in the
United States district court here to-
day handed down an opinion grow
Ing out of the conflict between the
circuit courts at Kansas City and st
Louis. and the federal court here over
the enforcement of the Missouri maxi
mum freight rates and 2-cent passen-
ger law.
Judge Mcpherson retains and
maintains jurisdiction TO adjudtcate
the validity OF the freight and pas
senger laws OF Missouri. including the
amendatory freight lazy of 1907
Whether the temporary Injunction
asked for by the Missouri railroads.
10 restrain the state officials from
enforcing these statutes. shall be Is
sued. and II issued whether 1t SHAH
enioln the enforcement of either the
messenger or the freight laws, one or
both. will, the court says. be consid-
cred a week or more hence
Judge Mcpherson said that ms
rresent view is that the 2-cent law
should be put in force until it can be
escertained By actual experience
whether cents will be remunerative
The decision was rendered in the
case of the Kabahs railroad VS.. Her"
bert S. Hadley, attorney general, ana
other state officers, and IL other
like cases,
THE DECISION.
Judge McPherson's decision iol-
lows:
''The real question here is. has this
court jurisdiction over the passenger
fare law of 1907 of the Missouri Leg
islature declaring 1T unlawful 10
charage more than cents per mile
A lesser question Is whether the bills
rendered for filing are supplemental
bills to those fled III this court III the
IS cases two years ago and now pend
ing before Mr.. Scho.eld, the master
II fully appreciate the responsibility
resting upon me and the consequences
to follow from the orders now to be
made. IL mistaken the mi cakes are
mine, even though have had but part
of one day since the argument to reach
these. conclusions Never has case
before me been argued with greater
eoouence logic and power than was
done by counsel both for the state Off
cers and for the IS railways. Every
phase of the case direct and collateral
has been so Illuminated that all posi-
BILE questions are at the end OF DEBATE
What is the supplemental bill IN
equity? And wherein is the import
ance of defining 1t? Usually 1t Is WhefN
there has been some change in the
rights of the parties, which must be
carried forward by supplemental Dill
one hundred and more years ago
Judges who had but little to do except
play the role OF mental acrobats ana
seek to refine and distinguish and TO
display an affected learning, and TO
IA pp9WPlN the IiffcrenCE
betwixt the west and noylhwest side
of a hair most elaboratsly set forth
their views as to original bills ana
amended bills and supplemental bills
and bills of review. and bills In the ma
lure of bills of review. The result was
that a chancery case lasted for many
years. More than 80 years ago the
supreme court recognized the folly OF
much of this, and By code of rules
adopted the system of fact pleacinS
and left the old chancery practise III
force only when the rules adopted did
not meet the situa ton that might arise
and by rule 81 detinited a Supplement-
tai bill. But that is not important in
my Judgment. Whether this proceed
ing should be original bill or by sup
Elemental bill Is of small consequence.
II by original bill, the railways had the
right to file the same without notice.
and the right TO a restraining order
without notice. II by supplemental bill
tbo usual practise is 10 require notice.
And in either case II is discretionary
with the Judge 70 allow restraining
order without notice until IA hearing can
ne had on notice as TO temporary In
Junction. on Tuesday the nth inst the
con1plainants gave notice OF fling these
hills on Friday, the 14th inst on Thurs
day they asked 10 file them. Solely out
of courtesy 10 the attorney general, VINO
was not present, this was refused but
the court on it's own motion ISSUED the
restraining order. to keep the matter in
statue quo AT the time fixed for the
hearing the matter as again delayed for
n dnv Mt the request Of the attorney
general he unayoidably being absent
During that delay the bills we're MED IN
ths state courts. For this there is no
criticism But i have stated the facts.
and the statement OF facts shows that
those cases. as 10 the laws OF 1907,
were bending and had been pending
since Tuesday, the llth inst Ana these
bills must be considered as llied as OF
that date. And whether detecuYe US
original bills is not material because
s,teh defects can be corrected on de-
murrer or exceptions or by the COM
plaInant before answer as or course
Nor IA II material whether filed IN the
Aorisinal case or separately docketea, u
separately docketed they WI al once
for trial purposes be consciousness WIN W.,
the Dll EuAtHt phl
OF the revised statutes. II the contel-
tion of counsel for the state olneers pe
technioally correct, II Is without
substantial merit as TO the rights OF the
parties
FIXING OF RATES PREsUMPTlVE.
"rhat the fixing Of rates by the leg,
islature is presumptively correct all
roncede. That It Is Legislative act,
ali agree. But that such rates must
be reasonably remuneraiiNe, cannot
longer be discussed. Tie railways are
entitled 10 cost and q reasonable prof.
H. and no fair-minded mnn disputes
II How TO arrive AT the cost and rea'
ponable profit Is a most difficult PROB,
lem. BUT n must be ascortained' ana
this ascGrtainment can only. be by
judicial proceedings and 10 DE deter
mined only by the courts and ultimate,
w by the supreme court on the unlte'
States. No skill Of the craftsman hs
the use of words or phrasns ear tah1
that from the courts to the town meet
Ing II cannot be changed by deeia-
nation, either sophomore Or rs M
,ectlye II can never be settled " Il
lLaal