The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-18

ing upon the controversy. but he would confine himself to a citation to other cases which had a direct and definite bearing of which there were a great many.
 He would not discuss the policy of the legislature. Not that it could not be successfully defended. but because such discussion was was unneoes- sary. ~
 Federal Courts do not and cannot concern themselves with the policy of State legislature" said Judge WeAkley.
 The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the policy of State Legislatures is not subject to re- view by Federal Courts and that the courts may not even consider com plaints that certain legislation is dras- tic" -
 Judge Weakley alluded to the power of wealth. He alluded to the power and the danger that came from wealth IF monopoly. The old common law even held that those engaged in ren- derfng public service should be subject to regulation by the public power. The State of Alabama undoubtedly had the right to regulate it's common carriers. It had only exercised that right and he was in. court to defend the way of that regulation.
 No denial was made of the suprem- acy of the Constitution of the United States, Every State officer upheld 1t and the Supreme Court of Alabama bowed in submission to 1t. He was l there to speak only in defense of the right of aN sovereign State to regulate | the public service corporations doing business in its borders.
 | Rights of the People.
 Much has been said in this argument about the rights of property" said Judge weakiey. And the rights of
 property are protected by the Consti- tuition. But let us talk as well of the | rights of people,. which are also pro- tected by the Constitution. Tn looking
 to the rights of property we must not
 overlook the interest of the people" Judge Weak1ey, emerging from this phase of argument, went into a discus
 sion of the claim by the States attor.
 neys that the present litigation was . suit against the State and should | therefore be dismissed. There had
 been disposition, he said. on the part | of the adversary counsel to laugh the
 Fitts against McGee case out of court, but it was the law as laid down by 1 the Supreme Court. It was. moreover, i impossible to argue an issue like the I one under consideration without refer
 ring to that important decision. gro argue such a case as this with out reference to Fitts against McGee would be like the play of Hamlet with
 Hamlet left out" said Judge Weakley, | The closing hour of his remarks was tdevoted to the exposition of that doc- Urine, that the attempt to prevent the I enforcement of law for which no offl- cial was specially charged was a suit | against the State. Standing upon this l ciAim Judge Weakley declared that the Federal Court had no Jurisdiction for the issuance of the injunction. 1 Judge weakley contended the refusal
 of Judge Jones to extend his jurisdic- | tion over the cases would not take away any rights of the railroads. They | would sti1l have, he said, the right to 20 into the courts Of the State. Tn these cases the shippers and passen- | Rers would have the interest and mol | the State The suits brought by the | railroads would be against shippers
 and passengers. and not against the
 State.
 Judge weakley took the position tha the Federal Court had no right to ar rest a legislative function; that 1t hal no right to stop a Legislature iron exercising its rights of making laws | and that the rate making functions O fl the L,egislature had been delegated | the Railroad Commission. The court
 therefore. had no right. he claimed to arrest the function of the Haiiros' |
 ''The Commission Is exercising ai administrative, not a legislative, func tion," said Senator Spooner.
 'It is a legislative function" saft Judge Weakley. T will not quibbi' over words"
 I Judge weakley, taking up the de clarations contained in the origfna bills, said that while the judge migh 1 say that the 2 1-2 cent rate was con | ka uAA 2S-4 cents rate was confiscatory.
 There was an exchange of question: ct this juncture between Judge JoneI and Judge Weakley. at which 1t ap' peared that there was Q difference oi l opinion between them. Judge WeakieS contended that a Federal Court coulc | not annul State law, but Judge Jonet | said that he could declare 1t null ant | void if it was shown to be SO. An allusion was made to the "out' law blll," the bill which forbids ths railroads from coming into court, and Judge weakley read the opinion oi | Judge Jones on 1t. He was ask cd, by ar opposing attorney if he considered the bill constitutional. Judge Weakley re- piled that he had never considered i' sufficiently to base an opinion upon It But he cited the decision of the Su preme Court in the Kentucky insurance l case, WnlCn WdSi CtkSO AA Sh1 @AS9a1A1- ture in which an insurance company
 was said to have been banished from Kentucky because 1t had appealed tc the Federal Court.
 "This decision was made by vote of to f." said Judge Weakley. "De' cisions in all important cases are usu. ally made by the same vote. But in the | Fitts vs. McGee case the court wal unanimous"
 The court room laughed and Judge Jones had to rap for order.
 l Judge weakley alluded to the state ment that the acts under discussion had been pc pared by hired lawyers lie contcnded that 1t made no difference wh eth on .he bills were written by hired | lawyers or by lawyers who recelveo I no pay for them. The point was then | merit
 While arguing that the court was
 without Jurisdiction in the cases, the hour for adjourning arrived and Judge
 Weakley announced that he would