The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-25


 and to enjoin the sheriffs against crim- inaI prosecutions under the authority of Fitts V. McGhee, and under the ati> thority of every other case that has touched the subject-matter. They have the authority to do it, because this case involves independent equity Jurisdiction, the right to protect prop erty interests. and because these crim- inal prosecutions are prosecutions by parties to the suit in violation of or. ders in the suit and in an effort to de. feat this Jurisdiction.
 The Court: I shall pass on this mat ter at 4 o'clock. as to everybody but MT. Dent, who has been kind enough to appear here. While 1t involves the same thing, shall not pass on it as to Mir. Dent. &
 who have not been notified of the re- straining order. As to them. 1t may be continued until the further order of the court.
 At the conclusion of the proceedings in court In the morning recess was taken by the court until o'clock in the afternoon, when Judge Jones de- livered an opinion, largely in response to the statement by Attorney General Garber at the morning session. He continued the preliminary order in ef- feet, without any further formal order.
 Judge Jones's Opinion.
 Judge Jones said:
 When these cases were called, the court hoped to have the benefit of ar- gument from counsel for the Railroad Commission. For reasons the Attorney General has stated in open court, this was declined. The ground stated is that the opinion rendered on granting the last restraining orders practically decided the question, and in effect. that the mind of the court was so firmly made up that they deemed it useless to try to change 1t by argument.
 Whenever a court acts, its action in- evitably involves q decision of every doctrine necessary to maintain the par ticular ruling. Every order in a case Is necessarily an expression of opinion. In this case the doctrine asserted by the late restraining orders was decided as far back as the 30th of March. The preliminary injunction then granted not only enjoined the defendants by name, but all other individuals, per sons and corporations were enjoined and restrained from instituting, bring ing or prosecuting against complaint ant, or any of it's officers, agents or employees. any action or proceeding. civil or criminal, etc, for failure to conform to the rate statutes, or from instituting any proceedings whatever against complainant for bringing the suit in this court to test the validity of the rate laws.
 These orders were submitted to counsel for the Railroad Commission before they were made. No appeal was taken from them, and no objection made, although objections were re- quested by the court in open court. the reply being that as the injunction was not resisted, if was needless.
 Tn the opinion subsequently, filed. on the 16th of July, authorities were cited, though the question was not elaborat- cd, to the effect that for the protection of a property right. pending in the court of equity, it would restrain and enjoin criminal prosecution under void statutes. or those which might be so declared. where irreparable injury would otherwise result. Those cases thus cited were: Osborne against the