The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1908-01-24
Judge Jones Takes Big
Case Under AdDisement

isIature whetherIit, was enforced BY
the Railroad Commission or By other
parties?r ~
II was on this question particularly
that Judge Jones asked Information
from the attorneys representing both
sides. II came TO be regarded as touch-
Ing the xeentraf and vital point Of the
issue IN which 50 napy questions are
involved. In their Arguments the at
toneys for the road devoted no little
time and attention to 1t. Nor was II
unnoticed by the attorneys for the
state. 1t involved the special point OF
difference between the state and the
railroads.
The attorneys For the state several
times In the argument declare that no
Just criticism could have been levelied
at Judge Jones because Of the issu-
ance OF the original injunctions. These
declarations. coming from the repre-.
sentatives of the State. had their own
peculiar interest in view OF the many
criticisms Of Judge Jones from private
and public sources after his Issuance
of the temporary restraining orders on
the showing made by the railroads.
But the State is claiming since the
adoption of the November legislation
the injuncti6ns should be suspended
during the investigation of the n1er-
Its Of the acts passed by the November
session. This has been the burden of
the argument OF the State--the in
junction should have been held UP. un-
til an investigation of all the acts
had been made.
To this the roads interposed objec-
tons on the grounds that the property
kof the roads would have suffered ir-
reparable injury and they argued
strongly the question which Judge
Jones asked, IL the laws are ultimately
declared unconstitutional will not the
property OF the complainants be made
to suffer because Of an Unconstitutional
act. And IL any loss is undergone Will
10 not have been because of the en-
forcement of an act of the Legislature
tuo matter how the law should have
been enforced.
Mr. stringfeilsss Speaks.
when the court met yesterday Hor-
ace Stringfeiiow continued the argu-
ment in support OF the contention of
the state. He dwelt particularly upon
the three. points which the states at
rtorneys have steadily put forward:
First--That the proceedings pending
in the Federal Court in the light OF
the doctrine laid down In the case or
Fits against McGee. are nothing
more nor less than suit against the
state.
second--That the acts should be In
functions during an investigation OF
the alleged confiscatory nature Of the
rates.
Third-~That the railroads have no
right to charge money expended tor
permanent improvements against the
account for operating expenses.
Mr.. Strinsfellow spoke for more than
an hour yesterday In recapitulating
these points for the state. He did not
cover the field 80 fully as he did In his
frst argument. but he dealt especially
with the features which he thought
most likely to advance the Interest OF
the cause OF the state.
The concluding argument for the
railroads was made by Gregory L.
smith, who delivered his second argu-
ment during the progress OF the cases.
Mi. Smith argued strongly that the
injunctions, both the flrst and the last
were rightly and justly issued. 4 The
contentious of the railroads. he said.
were practically without denial. The
evidence that had been submitted by
the various afIidavits had gone prae.
tically unchallenged. Under the eir-
cumstances he COMMANDED the State
could have done nothing else but give
the relief sought.
Mr.. Smith took up the AFFIDAVIT SUBJ
mitted by Associate Commissioner w.
d. NesBitt. In Tact large part Of
his argument was devoted to the con-