The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1908-01-24

based upon the Conclusions OF the Rail-
road Commissioned. These conciusions
tion Of which the expert, railroad men
who haa filed the afIidavits for the rail-
roads knew nothing.
Mr.. smith declared that much OF the
matter In the affidavit OF Commits
sioner Nesbit had been taken almost
verbatim" from the allegations con-
tained In q suit brought against the
political gentleman" The certain
political gentleman. alluded to vas
taken by all present TO mean Lieuten-
ant Governor Henry b. Gray. who re.
Gently brought ana pushed unsuccess-
fully suit to prevent the control OF
the South and North by the Louisville
and Nashville. The allegations con-
tanned In the bill. together with the
figures, were, before they were incor-
perated In the affidavit. exploded by
decision of the Supreme Court. Mr..
Smith declared. In generalixing the re-
suit OF the unsuccessful outcome Of the
Gray suit.
One OF the affidavits filed by the
State, and one upon which the attor-
neys for the state leaned, was filed
by Professor Edgar 3. Kaye. who holds
the chair OF engineering In tha state
University. Professor Kaye had been
retained by the State rs an engineer
ing expert to investigate aud report
upon the cost Of construction OF tho
lines Of the Louisville and Nashville
together with their present valuation.
Such testimony WAS Of considerable
moment to the State. because the at
torneys claimed that they were at q
disadvantage In proving that the actual
value OF the road was not 80 high rs
that claimed by the attorneys and eu-
gineers Of the road. Professor Kaye
was given access TO the tnformation
upon which the engineers for thu rail-
roads based their estimate OF the
present value of the road.
Even the laymen in the court room
saw the value OF this testimony, fer
the roads are claiming the right 70
earn some sort of return on their
property and The value OF the property
Y named In the sffidavita Billed by the
The affidavits OF Professor Kaye
was commenced upon by both Mr.
Stringfeltow and Mr.. smith Mr.
Stringfellow and the other attorneys
for the road contended that It show
Cd that the property Of the Louisville
ana Nashville was overestimated.
Mr.. Smith, In his consideration or
the affidavit OF Prof. Kaye took an
opposite view. HeNsaid that on ali
points but one In the making OF the
estimate Professor Kaye was practice
ally agreed. The engineers who had
exclusively gathered the information
TOR the affidayits had declared that q
settled road bed. one that had been
carefully built up for years. was TWEEN
ty"five per cent more valuable than
. freshly built road bed. Professor
Kaye did not agree In this With the
engineers who had made the estimate.
Mr. Smith contendsd that the three
and more expert and practical rail-
road builders who had gotten up the
mass OF figures and had carefully
made the estimate were better quaii-
fled because Of their practical train-
ing, than q college professor whose
Information was theoretical rather
than practical. He enlarged somewhat
upon this and emphasized the expert.
ence which had been had by the en-.
@tneers making the estimates, contained
IN the efftdavtts filed by the roads.
Mr.. smith reserved some OF his
strongest IRE for the last. Perhaps ne
had never been more effective IN the
argument than when he was arguing
at the close, the point raised by the
question OF Judge Jones.
your Honor asked the opposing at
torneys IL the iniunctions, after be-
Ing issued had been Removed.
the law should 80 into ef-
feet and later 1t shout dbe declared
G&QT4HH
would have for the injury done our
property during the operation Of an
Unconstitutional law, and they could
not or would not answer It," said Mr..
Smith. you asked them IL an injury
was done our property would 1t not be
done 6y an unconstitutional law ana
u we would be without redress for that
loss. They could not answer that. They
were asked IL we did suffer such loss
VvAtlN6 IN N ha % -.
and that question was unanswered.
The granting OF the inJunctions will
do no one any harm. The shippers are
protected. The solicitors. the sherifKs
ana the clerks and the State officers
have no monetary interest In the Is
sue. They could suffer no loss. The
granting OF the Injunction might pos
sibly AFFECT some political regulations,
but your honor is not charged with the
duty OF protecting the regulations Of
politicians.
"on the other hand. the refusal to
grant the inJunctions would do irre-
parable injury to the roads who have
come into court. They would have no
redress. They would be absolutely
without remedy. II the laws are un-
constitutional as we claim they are,
and they were allowed to remain In
force until declared void by q court,
our property would be confiscated and
we Mould be absolutely without REM
edv."
At the coneIuAion Of the arguments
Judge Jones asked that all the aFgu.
ments which had been made, together
with the afiidavits, be printed. George
W. Jones said he had submitted to
the State proposition for printing the
record as asked by the judge but a.
yet had received no reply. He assured
the Judge that whatever ths State did
or did not. the arguments and am
davits Of the roads would be printed.
And at ! o'clock In the afternoon.
clerks and porters began the task OF
gathering up the great mass Of law
books which had been used In perhaps
the greatest law suit Alabama has
even seen.
---~~-------------------s------