The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-05-09

the anaWeIb Ecauy ny Euic fas
The Court--I suggest in matters of
this moment that we should comply
strictly with the rule.
Judge walker That will DO done.
Judge Humphrey--Then expect
you to file your answer at the June
rules
Judge walker--or earlier than that
If possible.
The court-.w What is the next rule
day?
Mr.. Lawton--The first Monday in
June. June Srd.
The Court--Then there is nothing
but to make the order for the prellm-
mary injunction in the ten cases and
continue the hearing of the other two,
as to Issue OF preliminary injunction.
b Mr. TIilman-- Before that is done 1
would like to ask the courts atten-
ton to this proposed amendment I
suppose they have no obje ,tion to
my asking for a formal order fling
them.
The Court--Yoa can take en- order
allowing them.
Mr.. Lawton-The bills other than the
bill of the Louisville and Nashville and
the South and North all attacked as
unconstitutional and contrary to the
1907, which continued In force and
prohibited the raising of all rates In
force January 1, 1907, the act to which
the Attorney General has just refer
red. Speaking ~for the Central of
Georgia Railway the Southern and
others, we do not care to present that
question. We have no allegation
against that act of February 8, at the
present time
The Court-which is the act of Feb
ruary o?
May he Another Case Later.
Mr.. Lawton-The act making the
rates of January /. maximum rates,
We have at present no desire to ask
for an Injunction pendente lite on that
act. 1t is covered, however, by the
prayer of the bill, and will come up in
the final decree. 1t is possible we
may ask for relief from the court, and
l should like to put in the order now
that the right Is reserved to the com
plainant to ask for a restraining order
as to that at some future time. L
want that TO avoid misunderstanding
and to let 1t be understood that we DO
not waive any rights we have, and IN
order that we do not now argue d
question that might turn out to De
moot question. 49,.
Mr.. Garber-You would have that
right anyhow. ,,.
Mr.. Weakley-we think they would
have that right.
Mr.. Prince-Let that appear Tor all
the roads excepting.
Mr. waIker-Counsel for the defeh-
dant thought that in the temporary
restraining order the court would deal
with the cases in the way or MAINTAIN
inc the status QUO. The court they say
NAV. wish to ask to disturb IL.
Mr. walker-Of course they can
make an application to that erect.
Mr.. Iawton--That Is all we want.
MFR. walker-I do not see the pro-
priety in the present state OF the pieau-
ings and of, the orders or the court VI
making any order on that suoJeu.
Making or not making would not ar
feet the rights of the parties to THESE
suits to come in at any time they oe-
sire to make 1t, and make IT,
THE Court agree with Judge Waih
or about that. l understand ne Simply
gives notice to prevent surprise. rms
notice Is now given In open court ina.
II NAV be advisable on the part Oh
your client to raise that issue.
Mr.. Lawton-This Is the rang uas o.
The right is hereby reserved to the
oan,niainants to move at any time, up
on reasonable notice to the defendants
for an Injunction pending the final de-
cree In this cause against the ENFORCE
ment. In whole or in part OF the rates
prescribed by an act of the legislature
~ Alabama approved February ., l9of'
entitled An Act to make railroad rates
on freight in force January 1st, 1907
for the transportation originating
within the State the maximum rates;
and also to move for suspension, in
whole or in part. of the rates therein
prescribed"
In other words. I do not want 1t to
appear by the issue of the injunction
that we are concluded on that question,
that the question has come up and been
decided against us. Certainly there is
no harm in preserving that This is
the order that we ask for and 1 am
unable to see any objection to the rec
ord showing that the question referred
to has not been taken up and decided
by the court 1t does not commit the
court to endorsing that when made.
The Court-Is there any objection to
that?
Judge Walker Objects.
Mr.. walker-Yes. in the first place.
there Is something else in that order
that we don't desire to be put in atti-
tude of confessing the propriety of any
relief that the court has granted In
this case, but the court on the consid-
GRAFTON OF the Dill III tiiC iii OF
announced the rule II would make In
reference to the temporary restrain
ing order, and informed as we are, OF
the position of the court about that
matter, we deem II unnecessary and In
advisable to undertake resistance
The Court-If there be any reason why
the court ought to rescind or modify
that order, the court would be very
glad to hear 1T now. The opinion OF
the court then announced was in view
of the decision Of the Supreme Court
of the United states, made repeatedly
in this class of cases, that the bills
II the facts therein stated be proved,
entitle the complainants TO relief
Mr.. Walker-That is what we I'M
derstood, but 1t does not follow from
that that we accede TO the view of
the court, or that we should be put in
the position of asserting. We simply
say we do not desire at this time to
prevent the issuance of the temporary
injunction sought.
The Courts not the court bound,
under settled rules of the law and
equity in the present status of these
ten cases, to issue that preliminary in
junction?
Judge Walker-We understand the
courts ruling in that regard, but we
do not want to be put in the attitude
of consenting.
The Court-Of course, the court
would not put you in that attitude
Judge Walker-So much as to that
phraseology that we appearing in
court and consentng, etc.
Judge Humphrey-This does not say
that 1t says. the rule to show cause
why an interlocutory injunction should
not be granted and certain rates to be
he haa ..1