The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-04-07
WITH STATE
 IN RAIL RATE CASES

ries; and other questions of like char acter. The view we take of the case
 Shss 1t to sn,sr ana shese consider and decide these and many other questions urged on our atten-
 These being appeals from interloc- utory decreeS granting inJunctions, the ultimate question to be decided Is whether or not, on the law and the injunctions were improvidentiy issued The question can be intelligently de- ctded only by considering separately the material grounds alleged as au- fhoriztng the injunctions.
 l. The complainants claim that tho rates are confiscatory; that they are so low as to deprive them of adequate fstrsns on ss hs br sPs 6 s. are contrary to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and to like provisions of the State Constitu. ,tion. ~
 This contention raises a~question of fact, and the main inquiry in these cases is whether or not 1t is sufh- cientiy sustained by the records be- fore us to have authorized the inter locutory tnjunctions.
 Duty to Refuse InJuncsions.
 Where 1t is doubtful what upon the final hearing may be ascertained where the rights of the complainants are such that they will suffer no more injury If they finally succeed than would be inflicted on the defendants duty of the court to refuse pyelim : mary injunction. Especially is tl:is true in a case where it is sought to saies asss Ss whes 1t Is probable that a practical test or the law will be required to ascer- tain the truth. To adopt different cessariiy and Improperly restrained from doing what they have right to do. and, through such restraint. suf- fer an injury for which they could
 Brewer. J., speaking for the ,Sp- preme Court of Kansas. observed: "An Injunction in limine is not matter of strict right. It may sometimes be which would entitie the party of right to an injunction on final hear ing" Atiin vs. Davis. IA Kas: III, conley ss ses vs f1is Fsmnyg 1y ae if Kas sa ass
 It Is true that in the event the contention of the compliments Is finally sustained after a practical test that they had unjustiy suffered loss. but that only proves that laws regu- lating rates. like laws imposing taxes cannot be so made and enforced as to always insure perfect equity. On the other hand. if the operation of the laws is enioined and they afterward prove valid, some injustice has been done those entitled to the immediate
 1t is argued that the injunction should be issued because the rights of the defendants and all interested are secure by bonds. It is true that the courts have held that the fact that the defendants' rights may be secured by bond is sometimes a sound req son, in cases where the final result is doubtful, for exercising judicial discretion in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. But that rule Is not always controlling, and clear ly it should not be applied in eases lwhere the bond does not afford ade- quate protection. Here the bonds giv- en are intended to secure innumerable passengers and shippers or con that the claims of one tenth of them, on breach of the bonds. would ever be presented, or, if presented. would be paid and to enforce payment in the courts unless those injured com bined in their efforts. would cost more than the claim is worth. Those familiar with the rift case know that the bond proved ineHctual as complete indemnity in that case, although the parties sought to be protected were large shippers of lumber. rift, ct al xs. southern Railway @, ct zaa. al: 1ss 1ss Fed. 75s; Southern Railway Co, of al vs. rift, ct al, 14S Fed. '1021;. 206 U. S. 42S; rift, ct al vs. Southern Railway Co.,, ct al. 159 Fed. 5b5 :. Where the injunction is granted. the bonds should, of course. be requirei. it's discretion upon the theory that the bond in cases like these gives com- plete indemnity.
 It is urged by the complainants that