The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-06-30
His Utterances Of No
Importance.
AMOUNT TO NO MORE
THAN PRIVATE CITIZEN
Judge Jones Roles for the Railroad
Commission Attorneys.
IRsaIroaAs HAD ouotedsthe Gevernor to
SHOW TAat He Was Prejudicea
nnd wished Them

Judge Thomas G.. Jones, OF the Fed
eral Court of the Middle District in an
opinion rendered yesterday, in one
phase Of the Alabama rate cases ruled
for the attorneys Of the Railroad Com
mission on a motion to strike from
the record certain statements in the
bills. filed by the attorneys for the
railroads, and which contained quota
tions from utterance Of Governor CO.
mer. to prove that he was prejudiced
against the railroads and that they
showed prejudicial motives.
The attorneys for the Commission
moved exceptions to these on the
grounds Of "impertinence." saying that
they threw no light on the merits Of
the issue and only raised new ques-
tions. Judge Jones ruled with them.
and twenty-five alleged "impertinences"
were stricken from the records, most
of which were quotations from the
Governor to show his attitude toward
the railroads.
Judge Jones says in effect that what
the Governor said had nothing what
ever to do with these; cause that ut
terances made by q public official wera
no more than utterances made by a
private citizen. In the light OF the
Governors harsh criticisms of the Fed
sral Court in public utterances, parts
Of Judge Jones' opinion may be con-
sidered Significant.
One Of the strongest portions or the
opinion deals with the proper conduct
Of the different branches Of government
and. the propriety and consideration
which should prevail between ofi-
rials.
The respect which each of the great
departments has and ordinarily accords
TO the action of other coordinate
branches is ofunded upon the high
est consideration Of public good. Tne
courts have taught 1t since the days
of Marshall. 1t has become canon
Of Jurisprudence. The importance 9.
its observances has been emphasized,
with here and there an exception. by
the example OF D tong line OF Illus
srious public servants, who have ex-
ercised legislative, executive or judi
scial functions In the State or Union
from the earliest days Of the Republic
down to the present time.
Ana in the following paragraph he
aeaIs with the questions of the Cover
nor's utterances brought to his atten-
ZION by the bills fled by the attorneys
for the railroad:
; att follows that the several allega-
Hons fled for impertinence concerning
extra session, or what he sought 10
accomplish thereby, or expects to re-
suit therefrom. his personal wnim'
caprice or prejudice in>causing certain
provisions to be drafted in the stat
iite. his employment OF attorneys LOT
that purpose, the statements made py
MIN in unofflcial utterances. with the
sinrle exception hereafter noted. his
interviews in the newspapers or his
letters To members of the Legislature,
III. denunciations Of the compliments as
defers of the law, and his criticism OF
them for resisting the Legislation IN
the courts are impertinences ana must
be expunged. They are OF no -
inheritance and are no more 10 oe con
$1,000 IN a court Of justice than would
I've utterances of any other person
IN the newspapers or upon the hue'-
tngs.
The opinion in full: ,r~oea
South and North Alabama
Company VS.. Railroad Coii'iii'es'A
Alabama. ct al p.,,rosd
louisville and Nashville haoS1
Cnnnanv VS.. Railroad Commission OF
Alabama, ct al.
Nashville. Chattanooga and 81. LOUIS
Railway VS.. Railroad Commission Oh
Alabama, ct al.
These cases are submitted on e1cep-
tions for impertinence to the nrst ana
second supplemental biiis' me hature
NJ the exceptions will readily be gath
cred from the opinion,
Alex. NJ CARRIER. Attorney General
II G. Selheimer, and s. d. Weakley'
argued In support Of the exceptions.
Henry l. Stone. Gregory L. smith.
q n bowie. George w. Jones. and j.
Manly Foster. contra.
Zones. District Judge. The motion
Of complainants TO strike respondents
- he
Fundamental bills, for impertinence,
cannot prevail An examination OF the
record shows that at the date OF the
order suspending further proceedings
until the decision OF the Circuit Court
~ Appeals upon the interiocutory in
functions, no rule day had passed after
the service of process. at wnioh tne
exceptions were required to be pre-
sented; and under the circumstances
sttsn6inr4 the preparation of these
cases. the court does not feel at ltber-
~ TO hold the respondents in default
for not taking the exceptions on the
next rule day after the decision OF the
Court of Appeals. The number or these
exceptions and the necessity FOR a
prompt ruling upon them, to get the
cases speedily at issue. make 1t i'm
practicable to discuss edch exception
separately
whether an allegation Is amenable
20 an objection for impertinence de-
ponds upon the nature and scope Of the
legitimate issues which can arise I'M
der the bill II an allegation when
proven could exercise any proper In
fuence in the decision Of the cause, 1t
cannot. In general, be said to be I'M
pertinent. The supplemental bills open
a wide field Of inquiry, in the explora-
tion of which the court and parties
must trace and consider the signifi-
canoe Of hundreds OF facts and circum-
stanes. which scanned separately. may
not be of consequence, and yet. when
taken as a whole, may furnish valu-
able aid In shaping a right determine
ton of the causes.
$50 many Difficult and Intricate ques-
tione Of law and fact are involved IN
suits attacking freight and passenger
rates upon constitutional grounds. that
A. has become the custom Of the plead !
err in this class Of bills not only to
state enough OF the facts to show that
the allegations as to the rates being
unreasonable or connscatory. are not
mere conclusions Of the pleader as dis
q