The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-28
Reuiew of Supplemental
 Bills Filed by Railroads

are attacked as unconstitutional and void, upon the ground that they pro- vide no meth cd whereby an effective, Judicial review of the reasonableness of the rates established by the act or fixed by the Commission can be ob- tained, and point out that where any rate. fixed by statute or by the Rail- road Commission, is complained of by the Railroad Company as unreason- able. unfair or conf1scatory, the law provides no method whereby such rates can be suspended until the Railroad Commission can pass upon the matter. nor for sixty days after they have passed upon them, not for such addi- tional time as may be required to give reasonable notice to the Railroad Commission, of an application to the court to which an appeal from the Railroad Commissions decision may be taken to have the rates suspended, so that there will necessarily be a very considerable time during which the railroad companies will be obliged either to put the ratos in force, or to ures. and their officers, agents and servants to indictments for misde- meanors for a violation of the rates so fixed. and that by the several acts of the recent session of the Legfsla- ture these forfeitures and penalties are made so numerous that they would involve q liability .n the case of the Louisville and Nashville Company of over $10,000,0O0 a day, and in the case of the South and North Alabama Rail- road Company of over $5,000, 900 a day. and In the caee of the Nashville, Chat tanooga and St. Louis Railway of over $600.000 a day. so that 1t will be im- possible for any railroad company to refuse to put in force rates fixed by IL q. nnkn 1rNnA sion during such period without sub 1ecting themselves to an entire confis- cation of their property, should they fall in their contention. unless such rates are suspended and superseded by an order of the court, as has been done in this case.
 wouId Cripple Business.
 The bill further points out that many of its agents are engaged as telegraph operators in the operation of its trains carrying passengers. freight and mails, and that many of them are engaged as conductors in the management Of It's trains. and that the number of suits and arrests that could be brought and made under this system of legislation would be so great as to make 1t im- possible for the employees to attend to their duties, and also make 1t impos- sible for the railroad companies to enl- ploy other competent persons to at- tend to such duties. and that this would result In delaying the United States mail and the transportation of freight and passengers, and in endan- gering the lives of the passengers upon trains.
 In addition to this, the same wit nesses and the same books would be necessary in the defense of the prose- cution of each agent. officers or en- ploye of any particular road, and these prosecutions would be so numerous as to make 1t physically impossible to de- fend against them. To avoid this, 1t was necessary to restrain such prosecu tions.
 It is further contended that the acts of the Legislature which undertake to repeal the right of the Attorney Gen eraI and the Railroad Commission to enforce the statutory rates and to re- peal the procedure which had previous Iy been established for the purpose of testing, by judicial review, the req condolences, fairness and validity of the rate acts cannot operate to destroy the Jurisdiction of the United States court over the question of the reason ableness and fairness of those rates; that the change in the freight rates operates as a mere amendment to the system over validity of which the court had obtained Jurisdiction. The ques- tion is still pending before the court as to whether. or not. that system as 1t was when the original bill was filed. or between that time and this time all lowed the railroads to charge a req sonable, fair and just rate.
 The Railroad Commission and the Attorney General. 1t is contended, were the proper parties with whom to litt- gate that question during this entire time. and as the Federal Court has ac- ouired jurisdiction over them under the Federal statute and the Constitution of the United States, that Jurisdiction can not be evaded as has been attempted in these recent acts. But besides that. the duty Ho enforce these acts Is, by general statute, still conferred upon inc solicitors of the several circuits. and the right to enforce them is grant ed to every citizen who sees fit 10 exer- else that right, and in this particular case several shippers and travellers have declared their intention and threaten to exercise that right; they have been made parties defendant to the bill. and the complainants claim that the court still has full and ample jurisdiction to suspend and supersede inc rates and restrain the enforcement thereof by civil or criminal proceedings bv the exercise of its injunctfve DOW CTS against the solicitors, the shippers. inc travellers. the clerksNof courts and sheriffs.