The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-10-17


 nor's repeated assaults on the stunp. where he knew I could neither 70, nor reply
 Went Diseuss ReasDnnblencss ef Raasz
 Certainly. cannot be drawn into any discussion with the Governor as to reasonableness of the particular rates. which the litigants claim are ronfscatory. The rules governing pre- ifmInary injunctions In such cases are we'll settled. IL takes a strong case to overcome the prima facie presump- tfon of reasonablenes of rates and whether that appears or not is to be determined by the evidence in the given case. held that upon the evfd- ence. the justice of the case required q preliminary injunction. Two of the judges of the Court of Appeals held that the prima facie presumption as to the justness of the rates and not been sufficiently overcome by the evidence. The senior judge of that court dis scented. agreeing with the lower court on that point.
 No Ex Psrte Iujunctiens.
 The Governors unfamfliartty with 5 legal proceedings leads him to, say that these injuuctions were -ex perte. Everybody in Alabama knows that the nrst preliminary injunction was issued after ample notice, and that upon the date set for the hearing. which had been extended at their instance, counsel for defendants ad- mitted in open court. in the then pos ture of the case, that the court had no alternative but to grant the pre- liminary injunction, and that they did not intend to appeal from if. The other preliminary injunction, concern ing the rensonableness of the new rates was not Issued until many days notice had been given of the time of the nearing. Both sides for q period of several weeks offered all the vfi- ence they wished, and in the mode the parties themselves selected. Elaborate arguments were had for days in which each side was given all the time 1t desired. The court devoted several weeks to a laborious examination of hundreds of pages of facts. statistics and figures, and the consideration of a multitude ofauthorities, and several hundred pages of printed or type written arguments. What excuse then. for tho statement that the injunctions were issued "ex parte" or "on ex parte evidence.'' The Governor's Ansipathy Antedntes
 Rate LttigatiOns.
 The ostensfble occasion of what Governor Conner calls his "Criticism'' Of me, is my official aots in the rate cases but his personal antipathy long Rntedates his advent into the Cover nor's office. An angry correspondence took place between us fourteen years ago, about my appointment of the Hon. Jas. W. Lapsley as Judge of the cisS Court of Anniston. Governor , Conner, then a private citizen. rushed into print. stating in substance that while had done fairly we'll where the railroads were not concerned. that the appointment of Judge Iapsiey was due to the dictation or pressure of the L. and N. Railroad. The state ment was a pure invention of his own disordered mind about "envfron- ment" without single circumstancs to give even color to 1t. was then g private citizen and so was Governor Conner. and I replied in an open letter with warmth and freedom of feeling which is now debarred me. The mat ter ended by his disavowing any in- tention of imputing wrong to me. and avowing that what he wrote was sim ply to convey the idea that was governed unconsciousiy by the infiu- ence of s'environment." dismissed the incident from my mind. and never afterwards cherished a hard thought about it; but as now know my fangu- age ranlx1ed in the Governors bosom ever afterwards. The facts regarding Judge Lapsiey's appointment were we'll known. There were number oi candidates and some bitterness evinc- ed among the aspirants. Committees visited me and asked them to have a bar meeting and recommend 8 judge. They met. all the candidates withdrawing, and bar and candidates alike unanimously recommended James ". LApsley who had not been mem tioned before. and was not a candl- date A purer and better man nevas lived in Alabama. That the IL and N. Railroad had anything to do with