The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-10-07

lima and Georgia, and that when these
railroads crossed our border they in
creased their freight and passenger rates.
Under circumstances less conclusive
than these Judge Brewer of Iowa, now
of the supreme court of the United States,
refused to grant injunctions to the rail
roads on their eX-parte statements
against the railroad commission made
rates in Iowa, stating that the only way
that a fair trial could be given was by
actual test of the rates. Judge Newman
of Georgia refused to enjoin the passenger
rate of Georgia, which was less than that
now in operation in Alabama, stating that
on the eX-parte statement of the railroads
1t would not be fair to grant the injunc-
ton before an actual trial of the rates.
Those rates are in effect today and the
railroads in Iowa and Georgia show no
disposition to question them, although at
the trial the railroads alleged and con-
clusvely proved by their ex-parte AFT
davits that the rates were confiscatory.
The United States supreme court in three
distinct cases refused to sustain injunc-
tions granted by the lower federal courts
of New York, Tennessee and Louisiana,
on the ex-parte statements of the cor
porations. The supreme court stated that
it was best to give the rates trial I'M
less manifest injustice and confiscation
pellate court at New Orleans. made the
same decision in the Alabama rate case.
Jones Had a Show.
I'm all my experience | do not know of
an instance where a judge had a better
opportunity than Judge Jones had to
rise above his environment and say to
his former employers. the railroads, that
lower rates than these had not proven
conhscatory after years of trial in other
states of like tonnage and conditions as
that of Alabama; that ALABAMA has a
greater tonnage than Georgia had 30 years
, ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, five years
ago, a greater tonnage than Georgia has
| now, where lower rates did not prove
confiscatory 80 years ago, and that there
is no reason why an injunction should be
], granted on the ex-parte statements of
| the railroads. If he could not think that
| way he could have advised the roads TO
| have commenced proceedings in the state
courts, from whence they could take ap-
peals to the supreme court of the United
States, If they should deem such course
necessary.
"All these things were familiar to Judge
Jones. The rates in those states Will
stay indefinitely, as there is no fight
against them. Notwithstanding the courts
above named considered too indefinite
the ex-parte statements of the railroads
in their contention of confiscation and dis
elimination and decided that an actual
trial would form the only proper guide
for the court, Judge Jones ignored TINS
phase of the matter and, as every aspect
of the case shows, was predetermined to
issue injunctions against any law the
state might make in restraining the rail-
roads in their charges. 1t looked fearful
to the state, however pleasant it might
have looked to him, when in great head
lines the press would state that Judge
Jones had knocked out another Alabama
statute / do not think the trainers of
the federal constitution intended these
things to be. To the request of major
ity of the railroad, after they had made a
settlement with the state, to be allowed to
withdraw their suits, Judge Jones replied
in an angry hectoring lecture, quarreling