The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-06-18
United States Judge Mcpherson
Claims He Has Jurisdiction
Over Question.
TWO CENT LAW SHOULD
BE GIVEN A TRIAL
Whether Temporary Injunction
Shall Be Issued viii Be
Decided Later.

in the United States District Court here
today. handed down an opinion growing
ont OF the conflict between the Circuit
and the Federal Court here over the
enforcement of the Missouri maximum
freight rate and two.ccnt passenger
law
Judge Mcpherson retains and main.
tains jurisdiction TO adiudicate the va
lidity Of the freight and passenger
laws of Missouri. including the amend
atory injunction asked for by tho Mis-
! souri railroads. to restrain the State Of
ficials from enforcing these statutes,
shall be issued aGd, if issued. whether
| il shall cn1oin the enforcement Of
! either the passenger or the freight laws,
one or both, viii, the court says, be
| considered 4 week or more hence.
Judge Mcpherson said that his pres,
ent view is that the two-cent law should
be put in force until il can be ascer-
tanned by actual experience whether
two cents viii he remunerative.
Judge Mcpherson s decision follows:
The real question here is, has this
court jurisdiction over the passenger fare
Law OF 1907 of the Missouri Legislature
declaring II unlawful TO charge more than
\
whether the bills rendered for filing are
supplemental bills 10 those filed in this
court IN the eighteen cases two years ago
and now pending before Mr.. Schoueld'
the master?
Il fully appreciate the responsibility
resting upon me and the consequences
10 follow from the orders now TO be
made. II mistaken the mistakes are mine.
even though | have had but part OF one
day since the argument TO reach these
conclusions. Never has case before me
,,stf zf.aTs al
and power than was done by counsel hnth
Tor the State officers and for the eighteen
railways. Every phase of the case direct
and collateral has been 90 Illuminated that
all possible questions are at the endL OF
debate.
Mental Acrobsts of Long Ago.
''Wha, is the supplemental bill In
equity And wherein is the importance
of defining 1t? Usually II Is where there
has been some change in the rights OF the
parties which must he carried forward
by supplemental bill One hundred
and more years ago judges who had out
little TO do except play the role of mental
acrobats and seek TO refine and distin-
guish and TO display an affected learning,
and 10 discuss most graVely tne dl1ter-
ence betwixt the west and northwest
forth their views. as 10 original bills and
amended bills and supplemental bills, and
bills OF review. and nllis IN lhe nature
Of bills of review. The result was that
a chancery case lasted for many years.
More than fifty years ago the supreme
court recognized the folly OF much OF thls'
and by code OF rules adopted the sys-
tenn Of fact pleading and left the old
chancery practice in force only when the
rules adopted did not meet the situation
that might arise and by rule 81 defined
a supplemental bill. But that Is not inn
portani in my judgment Whether this
proceeding should be by original bill. or
bv supplemental bill is OF small conse-
quence Ii by original bill, the railways
had the right 70 file the same without
notice. II by supplemental bill the usual
practice is to require no.ioe; An Apo IN IN
Judge 10 allow restraining order without
notice until a hearing can ne had ON
notice as 10 p temporary injunction.
No Criticism of State Courts.
ION Tuesday, the 1lth inst the com
plainant gave notice OF Ming these bills
on Friday. the iith instant. on Thursday
they asked TO hle them Solely out Of
courtesy to the Attorney-General, who
was not present, this was refused but
restraining order TO keep the matter in
statue quo. At the time fixed for the
hearing the matter was again DELAYED Tor
a day at the request OF the Attorney
General. he unavoidaby being absent.
During that delay the bills were fled In
the State courts. For this there Is no
criticism. But | have stated the facts.
and the statement Of facts shows that
these cases. as TO the law Of 1907, We're
pending and had been pending since
V,
bills must be considered as filed as of
thai date And whether defective as or
ignal bills is not material. because such
defects can he corrected on demurrer
or exceptions. or by the complainant be
fore answer as OF course. Nor is II ma
terial whether hled IN me original or
separately doeketed If separately dock
eted they will at once for trial purposes
be consolidated with the old cases, pur-
suant TO section S21 of the Revised stat
utes. n the contention of counsel for
I 20 rIr1tT n Ti
n Is without a substantial merit as TO
the rights OF the parties
"Tha, the fixing OF rates by the LeglE-
islature Is presumptively correct. all con-
cede. That il Is Legislative act all
agree But that such rates must be
I reasonably remunerattve cannot longer be
discussed The railways are entitled Ia
cost and a reasonable profit, and no fatr-
minded man disputes H. How 10 arrive
at the cos, and reasonable proh' is a
most difficult problem But II must be
ascertained and this ascertanmept can
only be by judicial proceedings and 10 be
determined only by the courts and ulti-
tinted tinted States No skin of The craftsman
! hv the use Of words phraslng can take
! that from the courts 10 the town meet
! ing. l, cannot he changed by declama =
ion either sophomore or by invectve
! II can never he settled in criminal case
| by arresting ticket agents or conductors.
The Supreme court in The end mus, haye
the evidence. with the righ!, 10 make the
! ultimate findings OF fact. No local trlb
| unaI Federal or State. can foreclose the
! fact as would be done If the case goes
! TO the Supreme court on writ OF error
TO the State courts and from the State
courts there is no method Of review but
by writ OF error
Is Question in Equity.
There is but one orderly and seemly
way and that Is In equity. with the right
! OF appeal 70 the Supreme court. as has
been said by that court over and over
again. Tho argument that the courts OF
4lx1 I..tn in tstf =
OF the laws OF the State az well can
| the United States court will not ne argued
| by any Federal Judge. but will he con
ceded. Those courts are. as htgh- -mindfd ID
and Is learned as are the Federal courts.
but that is not che question II is a
question OF JURISDICTION. And this court
has jurisdiction and will maintain It's
| jurisdiction.
Nor Is this to the prejudice of any
one. As ] listened on Saturday To the
argument. was carried back 10 the DAYS
OF 1sOl-?. ] recalled the judicial revolu-
lions OF Virginia and Pennsylvania.
recalled the case. of Luther VS.. Borden.