The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-06-13

Col H. L. Stone, General Counsel: Gregory l.. Smith of Mobile. and George W. Jones of Montgomery appeared. :. The arguments for the road were made by Colonel Stone and MT. Smith.
 The entire membership of the Ala bama Railroad Commission was pres ent at the hearing. President Charles Henderson, Associate Members John G. Harris and W. D. Nesbit were all pres- ent and took an active interest In the arguments. N
 number of prominent railroad men of the State were also drawn to the court room by their interest in the is- sue involved. They included General George F. Harrison of Opelika, Major R. P. Steiner. J. I. Mckinney and E. A. DeF'uniak of Montgomery. among oth- CTS.
 The hearing was begun with a clear and forceful argument by Gregory l.. Smith for the road One of the issues involved in the controversy developed early in the course of MT. Smiths arr gument and 1t was prominent through out the days proceedings. This was the point as to whether the January rates should be considered as a whole or should be given separate and in- dfvidual consideration. MT. Smith de- clared that the question for the court to consider and decide was as to whcth- CT the January rates were confiscatory or not.
 Causes No Longer Exist. MT. Smith explained the origin of the rates in question. The road had established them under an act grant
 ing the special permission by the Leg islature. They were established to as- sist in the development of the State in most instances and to meet certain competition in few instances. The ,txt I 4k,r rates into being no longer existed.
 Some of the rates were now "obso- lete' rates-that is, rates granted for the upbuilding of some business or industry which had passed out of ex- istence. The roads were simply ask ing to remove the discrimination con- tained in .theespecial commodity rates. They gave one town an advantage or another similarly situated. The State proposed, said MT. Smith. to adopt an iron-clad rule which would make these -intustices go on forever and forever. The Louisville and Nashville now had only twenty-nine of these special rates. while the South and North, under the control of the Louisville and Nashville, had nineteen. It was simple thing the road was petitioning for-the right to have these rates made equitable and to adjust them to the rates and clas-
 sifcations approved by the Railroad Commission. In no instance was it proposed to raise rate higher than a similar rate between towns similarly situated and which had been approved by the Commission.
 Ip reply Attorney General Garber said that 1t had been a matter of com mon knowledge that the rates had been raised while the maximum rate bill was on its passage in the Legis= ature. He had before him the rate lists of the Louisville and Nashville as they had been promulgated since the 1st of January.
 Rates Greatly Increased.
 Quoting and comparing the figure on the different lists. he said that the rates had been increased from 40 to 400 per cent The State had been will ling for a temporary injunction to have been granted in the other cases. but they had not conceded that the maxi- mum rate act should be enjoined, nor would they concede that.
 Colonel Garber. still quoting from the figures before him, declared that in many instances the railroads had voluntarily restored the rates to the January 1st figuresI that is, the road had raised the rates considerably and then had of their own accord reduced them to the figures at which they were on January 1st. If the roads could do this, he did not see that 1t would be a hardship for the State to do it. Mir. ,Garber described the position of his friends on the other side 'as inconsist- ent. not to say absurd.
 The longest argument for the State was made by Horace Stringfellow. MT. Stringfellow went deeply into the legal aspects of the case. He declared that the bill of the railroads did not aver in any way that the rates, as they ex- isted on the first of January, were confscatory He alleged that the bill did not say at any point that the rates were maintained by the railroad at loss.
 On the other hand MT. Stringfellow said the road had on March 25 sub mitted a bill to the court quoting the aised rates and saying that it could not make a fair and just return on the property invested, under the law made rates. MT. Stringfellow stressed the point that the road did not aver in .ts bill the roads lost money on the January rates.
 Estabiished in Compliance With Law Colonel Stone for the road, took the afidavits and bill filed by the road ana discussed them clearly and forcefully. He quoted specimens of the rates un- der consideration and explained that they had been created for the develop ment of some special business or ln- dustry and that they had been estab- lished with the approval of a State law. The road had religously obeyed the maximum freight rate act. The State could not aver that any rate had been raised since the-bill was approv- cd on. February g. The road had done only what it was fully entitled to do under the law.
 Certain of the rates for evident reas- ons had become obsolete. The road had in the issue at question only nine teen rates for the South and North and twenty-nine for the Louisville ana Nashville Colonel Stone explained how these rates discriminated in favor of certain towns and against others similarly situated. ihe maximum rate act proposed to perpetuate these There was no way left for the railroads to adjust the rates equitably except through an ap- peal to the courts.
 = Judge Walker argued strongly the position ofs the State. He discussed, too! couple of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court which had been brought into tn ecs e. He declared that If the rates and the causes for them had become obsolete and there was no further business upon them. the railroads could not be injured by an enforcement of the rates in effect on January first. He directed himself particularly to the point of the States having the right to say that the rates in effect on January first, should re- main in effect.
 During the latter part of the hear ing Judge Jones asked the attorneys on both sides a number of questions. He particularly wanted to know what were the financial returns on the