The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-05-28
Proposition to Adjust Injune-
ton Suit Rejected.
POLLOCK WILL WATT.
Federal Judge Takes Question
Under Amusement.
VIII Prepare a Written Opinion
on Merits.


brewery injunction suit in the federal
| court were rejected Monday afternoon
I by the attorneys for the state, and the
attorneys announced that they would
/ Insist upon decision of the points at
issue one way or the other
IF we are beaten said one of the
/ states attorneys I'VE will take this
matter to the United States court OF
appeals without a moments delay:
The attorneys for the state consider
| that the decision in this in1uncllon case
is of vital Importance
IF an Injunction is allowed in this
! case said one of the attorneys, we
will have TO stop trying TO ENFORCE Lns
| laws prohibiting the operation Oh joins l
/ on wheels in Kansas City, Kan we
| will be afraid to arrest the drivers 0A
/ beer wagons for fear they may De ndOl
| ing some interstate orders, and may
try to get US into trouble for conteIlpl
1 Of the federal court We will hsht tnls
| case to the last ditch
Judge Pollock did not decide whether
the Injunction should be allowed, but
| Indicated strongly that he would allow
| II against N v Reicheueker. the agent
| of the brewery receivers, ana possto1y
against c. W. Trickett, assistant atLor.
| ney general, and J. E Porter, sher1H OF
| WyandOtte county
| You people are not very far apart
| said Judge Pollock to the attorneys, at
| the close of a long. fatherly talk, wnen
| al the speeches had been MADE II
| il appeals to the solicitors, I would ike
| to allow this restraining order to stanG
| in its present form until we can see
| whether the assurances given TO-DAY
| that the state officers have no desire
| to interfere with Interstate commerce
are in good faith
| There are special reasons why this
! injunction should not be allowed sald
| W s Keplinger, one of the attorneys
| for Trickett and other Kansas City OIL
GERS who are under restraining order-
| ..Tr Is exceedingly difficult to enforce the
law down there The enemies of the
| law take encouragement from very
small matter II this ln1unctlon = a.
/ lowed even against one of the defend
! ants it Will be talked up and down the
town and the word viii go Out uhal
| the bars have been let down ana the
I law can be violated It is proper Tor the
court to take these matters into cons1d-
we do not feel that we should con-
| sent to q continuance of this restraining
| order We want a decision on the merits
of the case.
Judge Pollock then stated that he
would prepare a written opinion IN the
case. after reading the evidence which
had been submitted This opinion Will
probably be prepared the latter part or |
| the week
+afned permission TO file with the court
the affidavit of Mayor ConneH OF kan-
sas City. concerning certain negotiations
which G w Trickett had with MIN
bout the seizure of beer wagons In1s
Z a AFFIDAVIT must be filed within three days
IF this is DONE said z. w. Irlcket[, I1.
I'VE will ask for opportunity 10 lie
counter anidavfts.
It is understood that N V. Reich
eneJ<er the agent OF the brewery recelV-
ers. who seems to nave neen tne one one
who IS getting the credit for nolestatlon
with the interstate commerce IN beer,
IS not entirely pleased with the turn in
events. One Of his friends said today:
AS a matter of fact, ReieneneksE Is
being made the scapegoat of this affair |
He was instructed by the receivers to
do exactly what he did. and then the
receivers got cold feet aid failed 10
back him up in his actions
Who Was He Hitting At?
Judge Pollock. at various points IN the
hearing yesterday, took occasion TO land
hard on lawyers who try this case out
side of court and give interviews to /
the newspapers It is supposed tnal
Judge Pollock was pointing at g w
Trickett. who had an interview IN one
Of the Kansas City papers ABOUT the
time Judge Pollock allowed the temper
ary restraining order
Mr.. Trfckett said yesterday: 1T IS
true that I had an interview in a Kan
sas City paper. but the paper did not
Drint all that I said. I said that there
was no doubt that the federal judge
has the right to grant this restralnlng llI1
order and that he was acting fully
within his rights This part was left
o11t and it made the rest of my state /
neat seem. perhaps, like a Criticism OF
the action of the court. But don
know whether Judge Pollock was hit |
ting at me or not in his remarks dur
ing the hearing
Judge Pollock. in closing the case, |
said,
NO state officer has any right to in |
terfere with interstate com mmerce- The /
trainers of the constitution thought II I
hest 70 place the control of interstate /,
commerce in the hands Of congress on I
account of some states passing exclu- /
sion acts which would be detrimental |
TO the people of other states In Mis- |
souri, the manufacture and sale of in /
texicating liquors is a legitimate bust |
ness while IN Kansas it is not, except I
under certain conditions
ssOne may go into Missouri and buy
liquors and have them sent to his home |
in Kansas From the time the sale is I
made until the goods are finally deliv- !
are a part of interstate commerce and I
not subject to state control. As soon
a. the goods are delivered then the I
federal control ceases and the state I
control begins and some restrictions
may be placed as to what the purchas-
er should do with his goods
ssThen- again comes the question of /
law found in our constitution and fully +
protected therein Just how far a /
state may go is a question The brew I
arv no doubt has a full right to accept I
an order for liquors in Missouri and /
send it over into Kansas for delivery. |
I think there is no doubt but that it is |
proper that the money may be collect |
ed when the package IS delivered In |
this case It seems to me that the only |
..-,azffoy7 fc he decided IS whether this