The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-06-17
Says They're Matters Belonging
to the Federal Courts.
WILL DECIDE LATER.
Inclined to Enforce the Pas
senger Rate Law a While
Until 1t Can Be Seen Whether
the Business Pays.

the United States district court here
this afternoon handed down an opin-
ion. growing out of the conflict be-
tween the circuit courts at Kansas City
and St. Louis and the federal court
here over the enforcement of the Mis-
souri, maximum freight and two cent
passenger laws.
Judge Mcpherson retains and main
tains Jurisdiction to adjudicate the val
idity of the freight and passenger laws
of Missouri including the amendatory
freight law of 1907. Whether the
o temporary injunction asked for by the
Missouri railroads to restrain the state
officials from enforcing these statutes
shall be issued, and if issued whether
it shall enjoin the enforcement of
either the passenger or the freight
laws one or both will, the court says
pc considered a week or more hence.
Judge Mcpherson said that his pres
ent view is that the two cent law
should be put in force until it can be
ascertained by actual experience
whether two cents will remun nerative.
The decision was rendered in the
case of the Wabash Railway com pany
versus Herbert S. Hadley. attorney
general and other state officers and
seventeen other like cases.
Judge McPherson's decision follows:
Tho Opinion.
THE real question here is, has this
court jurisdiction over the passenger
fare law of 1907. of the Missouri legis-
lature declaring it unlawful to charge
more than two cents per mile? A les
ser question is whether the bills ten
dered for filing are supplemental bills
to those filed in this court in the 1SI
cases two years ago and now pending
before Mr.. Schofeld, the master.
II fully appreciate the responsibility
resting upon me and the consequences
to follow from the orders now to be
made If mistaken the mistakes are
mine, even though I have had but
part of one day since the argument to
reach these conclusions.
Never has a case before been argued
with greater eloquence, logic and pow
er than was done by counsel, both for
the state officers and for the Is rail-
ways. Every phase of the case direct /
and collateral has been so Illuminated
that all possible questions are at the /
end of debate. What is the supple /
mental bill in equity? And wherein is |
the Importance OF defining it? Usual |
change in the rights of the parties |
which must be carried forward by a |
supplemental DILL. One hundred and |
more years ago judges who had but |
little to do except play the role of |
mental acrobats and seek to refine and |
distinguish and to display an affected /
learning and to discuss most gravely I
the difference betWixt the west and |
northwest side of a hair most elabor-
ately set forth their Views. as to origi-
nal bills and amended bills and sup
Elemental bills and bills of review and /
bills In the nature of bills of review.
The result was that a chancery case
lasted for many years. More than so
years ago the supreme court recognize
cd the folly Of much of this. and by
code of rules adopted the system of
feet pleading and left the old chancery
practice in force only when the 81
rules adopted did not meet the situa-
tion that might arise. and by rule 81
defined a supplemental bill. But that is
not important in my judgment.
OF Little Consequence.
whether this proceeding should be
by original bill or by supplemental bill.
Is OF small CONSEQUENCE. If by origi-
nal bill, the railways had the right to
file the same without notice and the |
right to a restraining order without no.
tice- If by supplemental bill the usual
practlce is to Tequite notice and in
either case 1t is discretionary with the
judge to allow a restraining order with
out notice until hearing can be had
on notice as to a temporary injunction
On Tuesday. the 11th instant the COM
platnants gave notice of filing these
bills on Friday, the 14th instant On
Thursday they asked to file them. Sole
~ out OF courtesy to the attorneys gen
erai who was not present, this was
refused; but the court on it's own mo-
tion Issued the restraining order, to
keep the matter in statu quo.
''At the time fixed for the hearing
the matter was again delayed for
Gay at the request of the attorney
&SASAdA, ne undNCluaDly being absent.
During that delay the bills were fill
ed in the state court. For this there
is no criticism. But I have stated the
facts, and the statement of facts shows
that these cases, as to the laws of
1907, were pending and had been
pending since Tuesday, the 11th in
slant And these bills must be con-
sidered as filed as of that date And !
whether defective as original bills is |
rot material, because such defects can
be corrected on demurrer or except | {
ions or by the complainant before '
answer as of course. Nor is it mater |
ial whether filed in the original cases !
or separately docketed. If separate |
ly docketed, they will at once for trial | {
purpose be consolidated with the old !
cases pursuant to section 921of the re-
vised statutes. If the contention Of I
counsel for state officers be techni-
cally correct 1T is without substantial |
merits as to the rights of parties.
But One Way to Settle 1t. !
THAT the fixing of rates by the
legislature is presumptively correct,
all concede. That it Is a legislative
act all agree. But that such rates
must be reasonably renumerative :
can not longer be discussed. The rail- !
ways are entitled to cost and a reason !
able profit and no fair minded man Z
disputes it. How to arrive at the cost {
and reasonable profit Is most diff :
suit problem. But it must be ascer- 3
tanned and this ascertainment can only j
be by judicial proceedings and is to be 9
determined only by the courts and I
ultimately by the supreme court of | r
the United States. No skill of the /
craftsmen by the use of words or I