The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-15

once. The railroad attorneys were, IT anything, better equipped in the mat ter of legal literary ammunition. And from every book bits of torn paper pro- jectedS and sometimes half a dozen bits fiuttered, as Amprovised book marks, so that the attorneys when they should say T invite Your Honor's attention to the case of Mum-Mum vs. Ahem-Ahem as reported sn 'Steenth United States cass with which Your Honor Is no doubt familiar''-the little fiuttering book would be in the right place.
 In the morning session when cour- teous inquiry was made of Judge Jones as to whether he had seen such and such a case bearing on the issues in question, he said:
 T think I have read every opinion ever written on his particular issue"
 Colonel Garber stool almost directly in front of Judge Jones to make his long argument. He had long type written sheet, but 1t contained nothing but memorandum of certain cases to which he would refer and certain points which he brought out. He was easily heard by every person in the court room and they gave him close attention throughout the long argument.
 His position was quite clear. He was tn ere to argue that the supplement taf bills should be struck. The original bills were based on the legislation adopted by the Legislature at it's ses- sion in January. They had no other basis pr foundation. But that original Legislation had been repealed, the basis and foundation had been torn away. Therefore, the supplemental bills had no standing in court. It was accepted by all authorities and all rules of law that supplemental bills had to be in aid of and supplemental to original bills. The bills under discussion, he said, Nn-gw. billie were based on the legislation Of the first session of the Legislature. This had been abrogated by subsequent legislation which repealed the first act. The supplemental bills, he held, were. therefore, illegal and should be struck.
 He quoted several authorities defin- ing the nature of supplemental bills. In most of the decisions from which he read the supplemental bills had been struck on the ground that they brought in no new or valuable matter, but served to complieate the issue already brought.
 "aThe whole question is--is it not does the Legislation in November abro- gate the original suits?' asked Judge Jones.
 Not entirely so." responded Colonel Garber. '"The effect could hardly be put that way. There are certain modi@ factions"
 Continuing, Colonel Garber held that the office of a supplemental bill was to correct some defect which existed in the original bill. The supplemental bills under discussion did not correct any defect for the props were knocked out of the original action when the cause of such action was removed. He held that the bills were subject to the same criticism directed in an opinion to another supplemental bill of which it~was said; Tt compIleates the issue without bringing any benefits to either party" A supplemental bill, he arr gued, was only pertinent when 1t en- larged or changed the scope of the re- lief sought.
 Judge JODeS's Question,
 An important phase of the case was embraced in the question of Judge Jones when he asked at this juncture;
 If the supplemental bills should be dismissed and that dismissal carry with 1t the abrogation of the former suits, what would become of the suits brought by shippers under the com modity rate bill against the bonds of the roads? You remember that the commodity rate bin was in effect when the temporary restraining orders were issuedt and that heavy bonds were re- quired of the railroads for the benefit of the shippers who were com pelled to pay a higher rate than named in the commodity rate bill. A number of claims, I understand, have been made against these bonds. Now. | would like to have your opinior as to what becomes of those claims in case your motion is alIowed?
 But. your honor those suits are not brought by the same parties who are now In court" replied Colonel Garber.
 Colonel Garber argued further that the supplemental bills were defective because under the original bills the members of the Railroad Commission and the Attorney General were made the subjects of the restraining order. while under the new acts they had no power, for they were by the direct act of the Legislature divested of ali DOW 1 CT in the enforcement of the law.
 Judge Jones pointed out that under ! the existing State law the Railroad l Commission could raise or lower rates. | He asked if the motion of the States | attorneys was granted what redress d | could have in any action | against the Commission. Would they l have to file, each time, Q supplemental | bill3
 Colonel Garber responded that the | legislative acts, as clearly as could be. | expressed, declared the Attorney Gen. | eraI and the Railroad Commission di- | vested of all power for the enforce l ment of the rate laws
 In the afternoon Colonel Garber took