The Topeka state journal., 1909-03-25
JACKSON REPLIES
Gives History of Western Union
and Pullman Cases.
Attorney General Isn't Respon-
sible for Railroad Board.
LEAVEN WORTH CASE.
1t Was Tried First Because 1t
Was Ready.
Didn't Inspire Stubbs to Attack
Federal Court.
CASE

Western Union Telegraph Co, and the
Pullman Car Co., about which some
criticism had been made by a Kansas
! City paper:
AN article recently appeared in the
Kansas City Journal under Topeka
/ date line, which attempted to give the
history and condition of the states
litigation with the railroads and to
cast some blame upon the attorney
generals office for neglect or incompe-
tence in connection with certain al
legged failures Of the state. 1t is diff
flcult to see how so competent man
as the Journals Topeka CORES pondent
could get so much misinformation in
to one article as appeared in this one.
This story is one left over By the lobby
of the legislature. The tale has been
reburnished by a select coterie of pol
iticians who hibernate around the fed
eral building in Topeka, and who think
it their calling in life to defend the
divine right of the federal courts to
interfere with state legislation. But
the incident affords an opportunity to
state the true condition of the state
suits with the railroads, and L give
heed to the matter for that reason
alone.
State Has Lost No Cases.
"In the first place, the state has
lost no cases in the federal court. The
litigation was progressing successfully
posed compromise. Representatives
of the roads met the large shippers at
Wichita and discussed the proposition
and it was then presented to the gov
ernor and the railroad board and re-
fused because of conditions attached
to the proposed rates. The discus
sion, however. resulted in the prepara-
tion of the new maximum freight Dill
which was presented and adopted by
the legislature This naturally affects
the suits pending to some extent, and
the course to be pursued has not been
determined upon.
Secondly. the attorney general is
not primarily responsible for the en-
forcement of orders of the railroad
board under our present law. The
enforcement of such orders is with the
board, its attorney, and the county at
torneys. The attorney general is
made a party to suits as a mere mat
ter of form on the theory that the
board may call on him for assistance.
When the invitation comes, however, |
as it did in this case, it is an invitation
to assist and not ito direct
Now as to the charge that the Leav-
enworth and Topeka branch case was
tried first as test case of the entire
order, by agreement. Such a thing
could not be done if it had been de- |
sired. The whole story is not only false, |
but absurd and silly. The Leaven-
worth and Topeka case was tried first |
because the case was ready, and where |
cannot all be tried at one term. This |
case was simple and concerned only |
domestic business, while the main line |
cases involved the intricate questions
of a valuation of the lines for domestic |
business and a division of profits be- |
tween interstate and local business. The |
result of the Leavenworth and Topeka |
case would have no effect whatever
roads have not won it yet While the |
conclusions of the master are favor |
able to the roads, the facts are found |
much as the state contended and the |
attorneys believe the case dead easy |
for the state.
Much valuable information has been
developed, and it was used with good eff |
feet before the legislature in getting |
issuance of stocks and bonds by the
railroads.
Didn't Inspire Stubbs
Il am charged in this article also |
with having inspired Governor Stubbs |
to criticise the federal courts Much |
might like to admit this. it is also |
untrue. Governor Stubbs has too great |
a conception of the duties of the offica |
of governor, the powers of the state, |
and is too loyal to its interests to need !
encouragement from any one. A read |
ing of his inaugural address and his t
messages to the legislature will con-
vince any fair person that he attempted |
no criticism of the federal courts, or of
any person exercising any duties of the
court. Such courts are the creatures of
the laws of congress, and Governor |
Stubbs merely criticised these laws and |
the practice of courts in issuing injunc- |
tions or restraining orders on affidavits |
of railroad attorneys against a law |
solemnly enacted by the legislature, or |
an order made by its agency, the board |
of railroad commissioners.
THE state has no cause of complaint i
over any decisions of Judge Pollock. 1t |
has won ir his court where 1t had |
right to expect to win. If Judge Pol |
lock had not issued these orders. they |
would probably have been issued by |
some other judge of the circuit.
THE state officers were enjoined in |
one case by a nonresident judge and |
asked to appear in another state to have |
the order dissolved. But the state is |
not complaining even at that, for the |
case was quickly tried and decided by |
the same judge in it's favor. 1 merely |
call attention to the practice and the
possibility of it's abuse.
Twice in the absence of Mr.. Grattan, |
l declined to agree to indefinite contin- |
uances of the hearings on the orders is
sued in these railroad cases, because L /
realized that such continuances would |
give the orders the practical effect OF /
lnjunctions, but on his return. learn
ed, from the secretary of the board that
the board had determined not to push |
the matters to a hearing on the tenn
porary orders, but to save their evidence
for the trial of the suits. And the or
1ers can be heard on five days notice at
any tine.
Upon the whole, the state is to be
congratulated. 1t has two cent fare,
while some of it's sister states are walk
ing or paying three cents. 1t has a
good maximum freight law which can
be enforced, and still the right to con-
tinue its litigation if it chooses to en-
force the more sweeping order of the
board"
CorteIyou Heads Consolidated Gas.
New York, March 25.-George B.
Cortelyou, ex-secretary of the treas