Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1907-07-13

thru it's attorney general? That ques-
ton was argued before Judge Lochren
in st. Paul, on Monday and Tuesday
in the railroad stockholders suits to
test the Minnesota rate.
Judge Lochren, in opening the case,
said the first question was the attor-
ney generals motion to dismiss as to
himself. Attorney General Young
explained the motion, saying that the
suit against him was a suit against the
state, and at the time he claimed the
states constitutional right of exemp-
ton. He moved for the dismissal of
the order to show cause On this
ground, as to himself. AS to the rail-
road commission he moved dismissal
because it has no duty to perform in
enforcing the rates complained Of.
The same is true as to the shippers
named as defendants. He was reads
to proceed with the argument on this
motion.
Jared How for the plaintiffs object
ed that the motion involved argu-
ment on the merits of the case. He
claimed the right of way with their
motion for preliminary injunction.
The questions raised by the motion
should only be raised by answer or de-
murrer. He objected to any of these
preliminary motions and wanted the
whole case argued together.
States Rights Asserted.
Mr.. Young replied that if the COM
plant was defective, as he claimed, no
Injunction could be issued on it, and
he was prepared to argue that ques-
ton. The matter was one of great
importance to his client, the state, and
he desired speedy argument. 1t
raised question of the powers of the
state and the fundamental rights of
government. The courts order now
stays the hands of state officials. Ii it
is not proper for such an order to ex-
ist it should be dismissed as soon as
possible. It..was unnecessary and con-
fuslng to take up the merits of the
complaint first and then to take up
other questions that might settle the
whole proposition.
Attorney General Young replied:
sI am here sued as state official. I
appear especially to claim the states
right of exemption under the consti-
ution of the United States, as we un-
derstand it. We are here to argue
this case as 1t is.before the court. 1t
is question of right, and not of the
COURTS discretion.
"What the attorney general may do
or may not do.if this motion is grant
ed is not question about which coun-
sci may come here and 1ippantly
speculate. The state elects it's of
ficials to perform certain duties, and
they assume the task of performing
them, for the people"
Judge Lochren said: "You claim
that tee bill is in effect a proceeding
against the state, and that as to the
railroad commission, there is nothing
to hold them. | think that point
should come up on answer, in pleading
or by demurrer. will have to deny
these motions"
The formal argument was then on
the question, Eff an injunction shall
issue. against whom?" Mr.. How pre-
sented decisions to show that state
official charged with definite duty
might be restrained from performing
it. He then went on to establish that
tho the rate laws do not charge the
attorney general specifically with their
enforcement, he is SO charged by the
general laws, and as attorney for the
railroad commission:
R. A. Stone then opened for the
state.
The principal point raised by Mr..
Stone and on which he elaborated ex
tensively was that in suing Mr.. Young
the railroads were suing the state,
something not permissible under the
constitution.
In order to preserve the integrity
and sovereignty of the state, this pro-
vision of the constitution was enacted,
he said, and ever since it had been
kept inviolate.
In support of his contention Mr..
Stone quoted many authorities, read
copiously from opinions bearing on
the question.
The railroads, Mr.. Stone declared
we're placing undue stress on the pro-
babiIity of the state and the attorney
general "runnng amuck' i'll the mat
Y ter =; prosecution, something for
whicl, there IS no precedent.
A. ;,Isa ctioa- hrof on the
part of the attorney g. raj, he =. d
here was no law to authorize such