The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-10
LegalArray Before Judge
 Jones. - ARGUMENTS FOR AND
 AGAINST INJUNCTION Federal Court Room Crowded With Eager Spectators.
  ysut Soon the Room Almost Emptied Itself of Laymcn Who Yawned At TechnicaIity--More
 Arguments.

With the eyes of all Alabama upon the participants. the legal battle at one point. of attack of the 'anti's, be- gan Saturday morning before Judge Jones in the Federal Court, when ar- guments by complainants and defend ants in the application for a tempor- ary injunction restraining the enforce ment of the Carmichael Bill were de- ltvered. Throughout the day the argu- ments were propounded, couched in erudite fegal terms that drove away. yawning, the laymen who thronged the court room at the opening of tho contest.
 The arguments were lengthy, so much so that but three of the attor- neys were heard in full. and g contin- uance until Monday was urged by Judge Jones. On Monday morning, at o'clock, Attorney General Garber will close for the defense, with D. s. Troy to follow with conclusion for the plaintiff.
 The arguments were technical Throughout their course, numerous ci- eations from Supreme Court reports, constitution of the State and the na- sion, and from the regulations of the Alabama Legislature being read.
 Lee H. Well. representing the F. w. Cook Brewing Company, the complain ant and applicant for the injunction. opened the argument, followed by As- sistant Attorney General T. W. Martin, for the State. Armistead Brown, att tache of the States forces by virtue of his retention as counsel of the Law and Order League, continued the arr gument for the defense and Attorney General A. M .Garber, with a continu- ation of the States pleading. followed. At o'clock, at the request of Judge oA4 Fva IA midst of the States defense by Garb- CT, who will be given an opportunity, on Monday, to continue and complete his argument to be followed by Coun- ael Troy, for the complainant.
 It is probable that the decision of Isfdge JoneF Avsih hasrendored. awing to fhe nafurn of the case and the request For quick relief. during the early part Of the week. This surmise is prompt ed, too. by the fact that the arEu fnents, while necessarily technical, are not complicated, and that the briefs of the opposing attorneys, easy of comprehension to the jurist, will re- quire but little study.
 Attracted Attention.
 The arguments, as affecting the most interesting point of law to Alabamians of the decade, necessarily attracted widespread attention, and the court room was crowded from the time of converting Saturday. The audience. however, finding little in the technical arguments to sarisfy their avidity for information. and their curiosity, and foreseeing the probability of an ex- tension through the day, dwindled steadily during the day, so that at the close of Saturdays session there were none in the Federal Court chambers besides those directly interested in the pleading.
 The arguments submitted by both sides reveal careful investigation of the issue involved, from every stand point of constitutionality. equity. and a study of the records of the House by which the bill was passed.
 One feature of the hearing Of Satur- day. was the introduction. at the start, of affidavits by Secretary of State Ju- Han, one of which bore the testimony that the complainants, the r. W. Cook Brewing Company, of Evansville. Ind. had not qualified to transact business sin the State by securing a license, af ter the license formerly held had laps ej at the end of the term for which it was taken, and had not been renewed. ITnon this point the States attorneys dweN. especially Attorney General Garber who further bore out his ar xument by the introduction of cor . respondence between Secretary Julian a ing that the letter had formally with Arawn from business in Alabama as foreign corporation.
 Lee H. Well. opening for the com nlainant, dwelt upon the equitable nhase of the application for an injunc- -tfon. revealing the loss which the Cook Brewing Company stood to incur in the event of an enforcement or the prohi- hilton law. Introducing second af1- davit which told of the refusal of a license by the Probate Judges of Mont gomery. Selma and Mobile, he declared that the only recourse for the com plaInants in such cases would be an appeal to the State courts, course necessarily long and tedious He ex- plained, from this, the desire of the complainant for an injunction, that action of their business, without the loss which suspension would cause, un- til the result of the fight in the State court could be determined. The loss to which the Cook Brewing Company will be subjected, according to MT. Well. could not be estimated, as much of 1t would involve the destruction of the good will which had been gained by the company during its business life in the State, and good will, 1t was con-
 d, was a valuable asset.
 Attacked Bin Itself.
 xplaining the grounds of a bill In
 ty and showing that the United
 es Court possessed Jurisdiction in
 case, MT. Well opened the attack
 the constitutIonality of the pro-
 ion bill, known in legislative par
 as the Carmichael bill and House
 No. I.
 was Section 64. of the State Con-
 ton, which MT. Well first en-
 ored to show was violated in the
 age of the bill. By the terms of
 on 64 It Is compulsory on the two
 res to enter on the journals the .......ldments at length. and show the aye and nay vote, together with the Section of the original bill for which the amendment was substituted, in short to record both the original and engrossed bills. It was this provision that was violated in more than one tn- stance. according to Mir. Well, thus ..a,dari0U tha hill upeon atitutfonaI