The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-16
BoDie Argues Confiscation h
 Famous Injunction Cases on Trial.

. the roads to monstrous penalties. The attorney general said that the roads might come In under the criminal stak- utes and make the test, Mir. Smith then declared that the appeal of the road, after 1t had been convicted, would require sixty days in which to be per fected. and that in that time the pen- alties for the Louisville & Nashville alone would fott up the enormous to- tai of $622. .o0o, ,000.
 Mir. Bowie outlined all this in his argument. He declared that the roads had been denied the protection of the court and that the Legislature had even gone further and subjected them to penalties that would absolutely ruin the property, if the railroads challeng- ed in the State Courts any of the rate acts.
 Colonel Garber at the morning ses- sion finished his extended and able argument on the positicB of tho State. His argument yesterday was devoted to an exposition of the position that while the original injunctions were fair and just that she injunction is- sued after the November session were unjust He contended that after the November session the court had no Jurisdiction.
 Towards the close of the argument of Colonel Garber Judge Jones took occasion to thank him for his expres- sion on the previous day in reference to the injunctions issued in May. At the same time the Judge had some gen. eral expressions to make on the situa- tion. In making them he said:
 Before we recess, I wish to say to the Attorney-G General that the court greatly appreciates what he said yes- terday regarding certain criticisms of Al .a.,a rr.k h nos tain motives which in some quarters were ascribed to the court, for ordering these sndunctions. do not believe there was a fair-minded, reasonable man, fairly acquainted with the insti- tutions of our country, who did not know--and the attorneys for the Rail- road Commission not only knew it, but said 1t in open court-that on the case presented by the original bills, the court had no alternative but to grant the preliminary injunctions. As to the further injunctions granted last Au- gust, in some of the cases, the court has not the slightest doubt. on the plainest principles of law, that it was it's duty to preserve It's undoubted ju- risdictionto try the questions mooted in those bills, in this court, and to pre- vent their trial elsewhere on :ndict- ment, by enJoining sheriffs and solici- tors who threatened to arrest servants of the carriers. notwith standing the operation of the rate statutes have been enjoined and suspended.
 'T am glad to say that the attorneys for the Commission, at least. have not had any part or lot in trying to foment discontent among our people with the action of the court so far as this Eti- gation is concerned, or attemped in any way to treat tt here as a political ques- ton. Elsewhere the questions here mo0ted may properly be the subject of political treatment, but here. the mat ter s purely legal one and has been so considered and treated by all. The court, in dealing with these questions, has never felt auth orized to follow the arguments of the hustings, or to impute any improper motive to those who are engaged in the legislation which gave rise to this litigation. The court does and must presume that the Legislature intended to accomplish good. All the court can deal with is the legal result and the validity of what has been enacted; not whether 1t was prompted by good or bad motives on the part of the executive or legis- lative authority of the State. Tn this dual Government of ours where the officers of each are bound by the high est considerations of comity and the public good. to refrain from anythi ing which reflects upon the government, either of the State or the United States, or any branch thereof, it would have been so much better if everybody had done as the court and the lawyers have done. and sought to try the issues now before the court as a lawsuit and not as a political question. I would cut off my right arm before. I would cast reflections upon the Government of my State or its officers, or make official ut- terances that would tend to bring them into disrepute. The same standard of ethics that requires every official of the United States so to act, required gen. tlemen occupying high official positions in the State not to make this court the target for vituperation on the stump, in the legislative halls or in official uterances. These things finally will