The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-19
First Week Does Not
 End The Rates Cases

gurnent as to the nature of the injuno-
 tton. He said that If any officer named in the papers had seen fit to violate
 the injunction he would have done IL at his peril Still his punishment Tor contempt would depend upon the nnal
 decision of the Supreme Court, for 1T
 that court should determine that the | inJunctions were not good. there would be no grounds for the punishment of
 any State officer for contempt. l Judge weakley said that the roads 1 are in no financial danger. They are 1 still charging the high rate. Even if the rates, as fixed by the Legislature. are declared by the Supreme Court to
 be fair and reasonable, the roads would | gain much by the situation. for there | will be hundreds of passengers and | shippers who will never bring suit against the bonds filed in the Federal | Court. @ | They would not have to bring suit against that bond" said Judge Jones. They would only have to come into | court to get their money"
 | Judge Weakley contended that the | continuance of the old rates by the road under the injunction, no matter | which way the cases went, the roads
 would inevitably profit by the sttua- tion.
 Judge ,weakley went into an able | exposition of what due process of law" meant under the declaration of i the Constitution. He asserted that l the railroad acts had met every re- quirement in affording the roads due process of law. It was not necessary. 1 he said. that the roads should have the power of coming into court as plaintiffs That was not a requisite to due process of the law" The Su- preme Court of the United States, he | declared, had long since settled that question. He referred to several de- cisions to strengthen his position. The fact that a way was provided for sthe roads to get into court whether it was plaintiff or defendant assured the roads of their constitutional right to come before the court.
 Penalties Necessary. Judge Weakley considered the argu- | ments of the opposing counsel that the excessive penalties named in the rate bills made them unconstitutional. He declared that there was only one way of enforcing laws and was by means l or penalties. He said furthermore that the Supreme Court had held it to be the rights of the State to enforce ex- trene penalties to compel compliance with the law. This was an establishe ed policy endorsed by the Supreme Court. The fact that & heavy penalty was at- tached to an act did not render that act unconstitutional. The wisdom of forcing compliance with legislative acts by heavy penalties had been fre- quently endorsed and approved.
 He quoted from a decision of the Supreme Court which said:
 "Thfs court is not a bar for refuge against heavy penalties Of the law"
 Due process of law' was no new doctrine peculiar to the Constitution of the United States, said Judge VaQIFlAU a AhoA harlxed back to Magma Charta, in which it was mentioned as a right of man. Yet nowhere was 1t said that a cor poration sho hould have the right to come into court as plaintiff. and if it did not it would be deprived of it's right to due process of law.
 During one of Judge Weakiey's period. Judge Jones said:
 "Will you excuse me while take a. drink of waterr'
 T will join you in glass of water" said Judge Weal1ley.
 That is all Birmingham man is entitled to these days" unless he is in Montgomery." said Judge Jones ~ft is all ever take" replied Judge l Wealxley.
 One of the railroad attorneys said. aside. that a Birmingham man always wanted water in the morning after he had spent a night in Montgomery. But Judge Weakley. who is one of the leading temperance workers of the State, and who is legal adviser to the Anti-Saloon League. never heard him, or he would have met the shaft with the ready wit which characterizes him. Continuing his argument, Judge Weakley said that due process of law meant simply being brought into court"
 Judge weakley alluded briefly to the claims of adversary counsel that the Eleventh Amendment, which permitted no suit against the State worked a hardship. It might be so, he said; he would not deny that, but stilI the State nor the States counsel was not re- sponsible for that. They only took the law and construed it as they found 1t.
 Judge Weakley submitted the propo- sition as sound law that wherever the Attorney General was named fin suit 1t was suit against the State. He cited the Fitts against McGee case in support of this contention. He went further and took up the case of Reagan against the Farmers Trust Company and cited that as a case sustaining his contention. The injunction, he said had been confirmed by the Supreme Court and the proceedings endorsed because the Attorney General was not named in the proceedings. If he had been so named. the suits, he said, would have been suits against the State. Whenever he had been brought into the suit. the Supreme Court, Judge Weakley contended, had always held that the proceeding was suit against the State
 Judge Weaisley took up the case of Smyth against Ames, another case which was cited by the State railroad attorneys as a support of their con- tention that they were entitled to pro- tectior under the Fourteenth Amend ment. Judge Weakley picked a flaw in this decision so far as 1t stood out as a hope for the railroads. He declared that the issues involved in this Ne braska case were not the same as those involved in the Alabama case. The predecessor of the Attorney General of Nebraska had entered into an agree ment not to enforce certain acts. But the Attorney General came along, Vio- lated that agreement and took the roads into court, as though no agree ment had been made. Naturally the case was overturned by the Supreme Court. Therefore there was no simi- larity between the Nebraska and the Alabama cases. Judge Weakley con- tended.
 So on down the line. Judge Weakley went with some decision that the roads had cited as sustaining their conten- tion Judge Weakley found fault. His contention always was that the