The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-08

iO parLlcularfZe somewhat. In the neighboring State of Alabama a Governor will within few days be in- augurated and a legislature convened. pledged to increase the burdens of the railways by largely increased taxation and to reduce revenues by reducing rates. 1t is. alleged that In some i'm stances the current rates for transport ing property are greater than the rates Tor similar service in the State of Georgia. In the last named state the Governor is to be inaugurated and a legislature convened, pledged to enact and enforce extreme anti-railway cor poration laws
 Ignores the Injunction.
 have saa ased auose eVery aT eort @ with this road (I.ouisvilie and Nashville) to secure settlement and the adoption of your laws. going so far as to propose re-. that could be pointed out as dangerous, hurtful or destructive to the railroads. The authority to change the rates you gave the Commission, and was acting "I was met by the statement from the railroad that any legislation limit ing It's charges or management would be regarded as confiscatory, and Dy the demand that the call for an extra session should be revoked. and the railroads left unhindered d, free from in- erning their relations to the shippers of the State.
 gro use their own words, the States Syer the Pn6ilis service sof ing rebates. discrimination and public ity of rates, leaving charges on the | transportation of the country and the rules governing the business relations otherwise free from State control and the railroads absolutely free to make such rates as they saw proper. and such rules governing their shipments in the 2fQfai al fhaX In other worda there was an absolute re- | fusal to recognize your rates and ob- serve your statutes
 | that the Louisville and Nashville Rail- road Company has not and is not re- | fusing to comply with all legal en- are deemed by the representatives of acter~depriying the owners of their property without due compensa ton and 1 inicting irreparable injury--have been l lawfully suspended by a court having jurisdiction. and are for the time being not in force.
 l which you refer is correctly stated Tn my letter to you. dated October 23, 1900, | (the day after the interview from which make the following quotations:
 Tn answer to your appeal to com promise-to settle the pending ittiga- ton between the Louisville and Nash vile, and South and North Alabama
 
 agreed upon with the Southern Rail. way and affiliated .lines, I stated that while the terms you suggested might those fixed by the statutes, they could not be considered, and that 1t was not to the interest of the citizens Of Ala. bama that the important matter should be adjusted in such an irregular, iile- gal, ineffective. and non enforceable manner; that in the execution of the agreement with the Southern Railway attempted to usurp. the duties neces- sarily devolving upon the Railroad, Commission, the Legislature and the courts; that a statement or or the ne, at.oe- ,0b lished to the effect that the agreement was based on good faith. Such set clement or compromise does not settle have been considered by either of the parties. That the State, having en- acted and undertaken to enforce laws were confiscatory. an appeal was taken to court and the court had assumed Jurisdiction. which Jurfsdiction was ac- quiesced in by the State; that such accordance with the laws of Alabama and the United States, and that It would be much better for the matter to be so adjusted; that was assured that with the cooperation of the State the case would undoubtedly be so advanced that the decision of the court of final resort mlKnI De aGtt tIdnQ WIlnlH lWGttS months; that should the result sustain the contention of the railways and be acquiesced in. as 1t should be, by the state, the confidence of investors might in time be restored, and the develop ment of the resources of the State ia. cilitated: that should the decision be adverse to the contention of the rail- ways and 1t be established that the State has the power to enact and en. force drastic laws and regulations. those who. invested thereafter would ao asS so p6n Wn wbch ds ths e capital, In enterprises subject to such regulation, was made. And l urged you. as earnestly as I could. to, cancel to cooperate in securing an early and authoritative adjudication.
 ''Under these circumstances, I again appeal to you to earnestly strive to do what you can--and which undoubtedly you are in 8 position to do effectively Ito quiet the apprehension and re- store or endeavor to restore, confidence so badly impaired; and again urge Legislature for the avowed purpose of enacting punitive laws to punish the Louisville and Nashville and South and North Alabama Railroad Companies for exercising the right guar anteed every citizen by the Constitu- ton of Alabama and of the United States. which prohibits the depriving of such citizens of life, liberty or property without due process Of law Permit the differences between the railways and you as representing the State. to be decided by the impartial tribunal which. under our form of gov ernment, has been created to adjust such contentious.
 Right to Appeal to Courts.
 Again from your message: The Louisville and Nashville and Central of Georgia have refused to recognize your laws. They have enjoined the State in the Federal Courts, and while protesting legality in thelr course. are actually ignoring your State laws, placing their property different from every other property in the State as to legal responsibility, and thwarting the will of the people and defying the principle of States right to regulate and have practically bound up the civil and criminal powers of the State.
 Your attention has already heen re- peatedly called to the errors in the foregoing. It must be conceded that any citizeng has the right to appeal to a court to prevent the officers of the State from taking his property with out due process of law; and in doing so such citizen is not thwarting the will of the people or defying the prin- ciple of States rights because the State has no right to enact and enforce laws In violation of It's constitution or the constitution of the United States. whether the contention of the citizen is or Is not just, the question of its
 ustness may. and should. be left to the decision of the Department of Jus tice.
 Again. you say: Tt is evident that the question at issue is not so much freight rates or passenger rates as whether or not the State shall domi- nate and control it's own affairs by