Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1908-09-04
ENJO|NS
ARKANSAS
RATE Law
SIGNAL VICTORY FOR
SOUTHWESTERN LINES
Passenger and Freight Tariff is
Denounced as ConfiScatory
and in Violation of ConStitu-
ton of the United States,

IBy Morning Journal Special Leased Wire
| st. Paul, Sept. S.--Judge Vandeven-
ter in the United States circuit court
to-day granted the injunction requested
by the st. Louis, Iron Mountain and
Southern and the other railroads op-
Grating in Arkansas, against the Ar
kansas state railway commission The
injunction restrains the commission
from enforcing the new 2-cent fare
law and from interfering with the rail-
roads in raising their freight rates on
Interstate traffic.
Late this afternoon Judge Vande-
lyenter filed his opinion with the order
granting the temporary injunction. In
his opinion Judge Vandeventer recites
the history of the case and quotes
from opinions handed down in similar
cases. The opinion in part is as fol-
lows:
Each of the four railroad companies
is engaged in the transportation Of
freight and passengers, both Interstate
and intrastate, in the state of Arkan-
isas, and each has made a practical ap-
plication or test of the rates in ques-
ton. The freight rates were pre-
scribed by statute. The proofs dis
closed the revenues actually derived
by each railroad upon the application
of these rates from it's business In the
state, the revenues from each class OF
traffic being stated so as to show sep
Iarately the earnings from insterstate
freight, intrastate freight, intrastate
| passengers and interstate passengers;
and also discloses the value of the pro-
perty employed on each road in the
traffic within the state, the taxes paid
thereon, the actual cost of conducting
1.-THE freight traffic and the actual cost
of conducting the passenger traffic.
] The first question for consideration IS
how shall this cost be apportioned be-
tween the intrastate and interstate
ltraffic? The proofs make it quite plain
lthat the production of given amount
of revenue is attended with greater
cost in intrastate business than in in
terstate business; and that this is a
generally recognized fact is attested
lby the decisions in other cases where
the reasons which make it so are fully
stated. Here the additional cost Is
lshow to be at least 100 per cent in
freight traffic and Is per cent in the
passenger traffic, and this is pract-
| Ically what has been shown in other
cases. Undoubtedly these differences
furnish standard by which to appor-
| tion the total cost between the tra1flc
which is interstate and that which Is
intrastate, and while other standards
are suggested the proofs Indicate that
none of them Is as satisfactory or ac-
curatc as is the difference in cost. 1t
must, therefore, be applied. When this
is done, the result shows that the
earnings of each road from 1t intra-
state freight traffic is much less than
the proportion of the operating ex-
penses that is properly attributably TO
| it. and the earnings of two OF them
from intrastate passenger tratflc Is
little less than the proportion of the
operating expenses and taxes properly
attributed to it. As to two of the
roads, the earnings from the tratilc
Hast named are somewhat In excess OF
the proper proportion of the operating
] Iexpenses and taxes, but not enough 10
so Weld a return of l per cent per an
nun upon that proportion of the value
of the property rightly attributable 10
such traffic. The conclusion necessar-
| nv follows that these rates both
freight and passenger are noncompeh-
{ satory and unreasonable. ana that
their enforcement, although not so IN
TENDED, is nothing other than taking
of the property of these railroaas
without due compensation, which Is
confiscation. This the constitution OF
the United states does not permit
But It is urged that Temporary IN
junction ought not be granted because
these railroads have heretofore ap-
plied and given effect to the rates IN
ouestion. the contention being that
Temporary Injunction may be em-
ployed to preserve the status quo
pending the suit. but not to change "
| II may be conceded that such an IN
junction is generally employed as
stated and that the courts are geheral-
| lV reluctant 10 eHlDluy ~ NNAN' "'~'
but this does not mean that they may
not or ought not to do so II the ex-
ilrencIes of the case require II; for as
has been often held, courts OF equity
tare not thus limited in their powers
but may, by temporary injunctlon,
effect change in the status quo II
IL be necessary to do so as here TO
iavoid lrreparable injury from what Is
plainly continuing wrong.
A temporary injunction vii De
granted as prayed for, but 1t VIII De
required for the protection of ship
pers and passengers that each rail-
road company execute bond In the
sum of 5000, 600 conditioned that It
will keep a correct account showing
las respects every carriage OF freight or
messengers, the difference between the
tariff actually charged and that which
would have been charged had the re-
strained rates been applied and show
| ing the particular carriage In question,
the stations between which II occurred
and the name of the persons affected;
such record to be made and kept sub