The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-03-29
GEORGIA NOT HURT
 BY RATE DECISION
State Officials Will Not Discuss
 Minnesota Case
NO CLASHES WITH ROADS
Minimum Penalty For Violation of the Law In Georgia Is Not Heavy
 Enough To Cause Appre-
 hension Over Lawsuits.

Atlanta March 2S.-(special )-There has been no little curiosity to know just what effect the recent decision of the United States supreme court in the Minnesota and the North Carolina rate cases will have upon the new railroad commission law of Georgia.
 AS matters stand at present, however both Governor Smith and Attorney Gen. eral Hart decline to discuss it, assigning as a reason that the state has litiga- tion pending in the United States court along similar lines, and it would not therefore, be proper for them to enter into such discussion.
 It is pointed out that in the Minnesota case attack was made directly upon the state law, while in Georgia only orders Of the railroad commission have been questioned in court. Whether an order of a commission based upon a law con- faining cumulative penalties would be considered in the same light as the law itself, were it attacked, is a question that was not determined.
 There is a difference of opinion as to whether the decision of the United States supreme court would affect the cumula- tive penalty sections of the Georgia law In the case of the Minnesota law, it is said, rather large minimum penalty was fixed, leaving the court no discre- ton in case of a finding against the offending corporation. The Georgia law differs from that of Minnesota in this respect, in that while it fixes a maxi mum penalty there is no minimum that being left entirely within the discretion of the court. It is pointed out that un- der the Georgia law the court might even fine the offending corporation as little as cent for each offense, and in ease the fine should be assessed for each day through which the alleged offense continued it would amount to only 8. 65 in the. course of an entire year.
 Power To Impose Fine.
 While it is, of course within the power much greater than that. the state au- thorities question whether the United States court would go to the extent of presuming that a judge of a Georgia court would abuse his discretion, in the absence of any specific instance of such abuse.
 On the other hand, it is pointed out that the Washington court pronounced the cumulative clauses unconstitutional no. particularly because of any specific abuse, or fine that was assessed, but upon the general idea that its purpose was to threaten corporate litigants to an extent that would prevent them from seeking IHe TeIneuy Ol IeutIdl llJuucllOti In other words, the general effect of these cumulative penalty sections was to prevent and debar the persons specificai ly affected from asserting their rights, or attempting to assert their rights in the United States courts.
 Of one thing there appears to be no doubt and that is the establishment by this decision of the right of. corpora tions to apply for and secure, upon req sonable federal grounds, federal injunc- tion against the operation of alleged un- just state laws or orders of railroad com- missions. It is held that the decision removes all doubt on this score as to Georgia as well as to other states. and those directly involved in the recent de- cision And further, it is held that the intervention of the United States courts may be so sought, in this as well as other states, without fear of the enforce ment of the cumulative penalties. so long as the federal court views the ground of application for its restraining order as a reasonable one.
 No Direct Clash
 Happily no step has yet been taken in Georgia to bring on direct clash be- tween the railroads and the state upon these points, and the recent Washington decision will make repetition of the Min nesota and North Carolina incidents i'm possible, or at least, extremely improb- able, in Georgia, as we'll as in other states.
 In Georgia incidents which led to these clashes in other states were avoided. Those railroads which questioned the states right to reduce their passenger fares made the reductions and then took their contentious into gourt. Some of them, 1t is true, endeavored to secure injunctions against the commissions or dprS tbaSa tal hy