The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1908-03-24
Minnesota Case Different,
State Officials Declare

bama railroad statutes passed by the
last Legislature has been regarded as
similar to those Of Minnesota.
The courts decision In the Minnesota
case Is regarded as having a vital
bearing on the Alabama cases now
in the Federal Court. When the Ala
bama cases were up for hearing be-
fore Judge Jones'. the chief subject for
discussion was the Minnesota cases
and it was agreed by all CONCERNED
that the same issue was involved in
the Minnesota coses as was involved
In the Alabama cases. 1t was even
suggested at one time that the hear
ing OF the Alabama cases should be
postponed until the Supreme Court
should deliver itself on the Minnesota
cases. At that time no difference was
noted between the cases. 1t was
agreed by all that the decision in the
Minnesota cases would be the decision
in the Alabama cases.
Deadly Blow to state.
All outside attorneys who discussed
the decision yesterday expressed them
selves as believing that the decision of
the Supreme Court was a deadly blow
to the contentious of the State OF
Alabama cases. II was regarded as a
knock out blow for the State.
Interviews were given out yesterday
by Governor Conner and Attorney Gen
eral Alex M. CARRIER on the probable
case on the litigation now pending in
the Federal Circuit Court of the Middle
District of Alabama in Montgomery.
Governor Conner and the Attorney
General do not admit that the opinion
of Justice Peckham. of the United
States Supreme Court, rendered yes
terday, will AFFECT the Alabama cases.
They both seem TO think that in the
Minnesota case Justice Peckham did
not pass upon the main issues OF the
litigation as brought up from Minne-
sofa. They point to the fact that the
despatch from Washington merely re-
cites that he law was declared uncon-
stftutional on ats face because of the
enormous penalties fixed in the stat
utes regulating the freight and pas
senger rates of Minnesota"
So, the tremor of fear which at nrst
appeared to seize the State officers
yesterday on receipt of the news lapsed
into a moderate excitement when they
read and re-read the brief despatch
about the turn In the Minnesota af-
fair. They are firmly of the opinion
that the Alabama contentious have
not been injured by this last decision
Of the Supreme Court of the United
States.
NHONGEMVE
ssrhe Minnesota act declared uncon-
stitutional by the Supreme Court of
the United States on account OF ex-
treme penalties" said the Governor of
Alabama yesterday. differs from the
Alabama law in that the Alabama
statutes provide that whenever a rate
is made either by the Legislature or
the Railroad Commission, the railroad
companies which deem this rate hurt
full Ito their interest can enjoin the
rate In the State courts and stop PEN
alties until after the case has been
PASSED through the Alabama Supreme
Court and the United States Supreme
Court.
THE Alabama schedule as made by
the legislature" continued the Cover
nor, "is exceedingly fair to the rail-
road companies, and the entire Ala
bama rates are much more favorable
to the carriers than those which has
-neen maintained in Georgia for the
past twenty-five years.
where the schedules provided for
in the statutes have been as equitable
as they are in Alabama, the Federal
courts have, as a rule, placed them
on trial by the companies, and in not
| a single instance in my recollection
| have they been found confiscatory,
| drastic or destructive. and so well has
the equity been proven that no move
ment has been made to rescind them
or TO restore the old rates
Attorney General Talks.
Attorney General CARRIER said:
"I am unable to say at this time
| from the brief dispatches from Wash
| ington to what extent, IL any, the
| opinion of the United States Supreme
Court will after the litigation now
pending in the Federal Court of this
state relating to the freight and pas
senger rates as fixed by the Alabama
statutes The Supreme Court of the
| United States denied the petition OF
| Attorney General Young, but the dis
patch shown me does not state fully
the grounds on which the decision II
1 based.
IT had hoped the Supreme Court OF
/ the United States would have mel
] squarely all the issues presented IL