The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-05-04

anu pViitiSiaHs ueotfos ~ hot WISH "
injure the railroads. Their prosperity
and that Of the people are Identical
The people don't want to pay excessive
charges. and they don't want to pre-
vent the railroads from having q fair
return. Neither the Legislature nor
the people can fix rates as they please.
II either pieases to be unreasonable.
When they diner, the courts must de-
eide. The difference becomes a law
suit. and must be settled as all law
suits are. by a trial upon the facts.
The litigation over the rates would
have been settled long before this. II
the State authorities had treated 1t as
q law suit. and not attempted to play
football with the rights of the rail-
roads. and prevent them having their
cases heard In the court at ALL They
first adopted the policy of treating the
cases as law suits. and said they would
answer the bills. and light the matter
out on the facts In the courts. They
said they were not even going to APP
peal from the preliminary Injunction.
But afterwards they did not wish to be
behind Glenn Of North Carolina. go
they reversed their policy and threat
ened notification,
The flrst suits were begun In March
1907. to enjoin the passenger rates and
upon ITO commodities. as fixed at the
regular session Of the Legislature. The
roads claimed they were unfair and
unjust. The acts and doings of the
Legislature at that extra session, as
we'll as those Of the Commission. in
evitabiy and fatiy confessed this to be
90. The freight rates. as hrst fixed.
have never been enforced a day In
Alabama on any railroad. They drove
every railroad In the state to take
refuge In the courts. None Of them
abandoned their contests until the
rates were materially Increased by
statutes and orders Of the Railroad
Commission. The State administration
promised the Southern Railway IL IT
would quit nghting the original rates
in the courts. that road would be given
better rates. The Southern agreed.
and go ala some Of the other roads. As
fast as they came out Of tbs courts,
the administration put up the rates
for them. Rates can not be reasonable
or unreasonable, according as rail-
road fights them in the court or . s.ses
to put them on. notwithstanding the
state authorities had thus confessed
the original rates were unjust and
wrong. and gave better rates to the
carriers who got out OF the court, they
nevertheless. bent every energy % en-
force those same unjust rates against
the other carriers. who would not get
out OF the court. II was determined to
annihiiats the roads who tested their
rights in the courts. The foolish ex-
ira session of the Legislature was
called. There was the stupid enact
ments as that no oficer should have
power to enforce the, rates. II this
was done. there would be nobody to
enjoin. Passengers and shippers were
given the right to sue in the name OF
the state. and make out OF these suits
by private individuals for their person
al wrongs. Hsai saits by a sovereign
state, which could not be enjoined by
the court. Other like legislative fosiies
were perpetrated. Federal jurisdiction
ana the Federal Judge were alike
roundly abused. and even the constitu-
ton discussed as a nuisance TO be In
directly abated. The original rate
suits were begun in March. 1907. BY
the extra session called to knock the
railroads out OF the courts. q year
neediessiy elapsed before the case
could be got at issue on the granting
of the preliminary Injunction. When
that injunction was ordered in 1908,
there had been such a mass of evidence
and pleadings caused by continued
change in the laws after the first bills
were filed, that the record to take the
case to the Court OF Appeals, could not
be prepared in time for the October
term, 1908. of that court held at Mont
gomery. Five months afterwards. the
appeal was actually heard in New Or
leans in March Of this year.
So far. we have only had skirmish-
ing. The evidence has not even been
taken on most of the points in the
case. The Court Of Appeals, by a d.
vided court. held that the evidence the
lower court had before 1t, did not make
1t 80 certain that the rates were so
confiscatory as to justify 1t then in
enjoining their enforcement without
more testimony. The opinion Of the
Court of Appeals did not say the rates
were right and Just. only that 1t was
possible they might not be conhsca-
tory. and that could not BE known ex-
cept by a trial. The extra session
with its large expenditure OF public
money. did not change the situation
one iota for the better. All the
schemes Of the administration to gel
the case out OF court by law or by the