The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-10-17
JUDGE GIVES DIRECT
 DENIAL TO CHARGES
tCs.sa.ued from Pase seveal

(Contfnued from Pase seven.D
 were much concerned and fearful bcoause the press announced in great head iines. on several occasions. that the judge had knocked out another Alabama statute" The regret the public felt were not that the ststutes were declared unconstitutional, but that the legislature had passed stat. utes which the court was compelled to adjudge in conflict with the con stitution. Common sense taught most people that . statute forfeiting the sight of carriers to intrastrate. be- cause they exercised . constitutional right to 60 into . particular court after they had come here. on the faith of the stAte's laws. and invested money in railroads. on the solemn promise of the State that they should enjoy and own certain rights and franchises, was both unjust and ille- gal. The court so held in the rate cases. and when the appeal was taken that decision was not assigned as err TOT. Like rulings have been made in volving telegraph companies. and al though 1t fs important to the wei fare of the State that the questions should be speedily settled. no appeal has yet .been taken in those eases. Most people were shocked at the passage q the statute which outlawed the carriers and prevented them from talk ing the ordinary police precautions at stations to protect the lives and limbs of passengers and safeguard the pub lie. because the carriers had not ob- served other statutes Everybody was gratified that 1t was stricken down. It has since been repealed.
 L &tA1 declared unconstitutional. They were unconstitutional under decisions of the Supreme Court. made before and since that statute was knocked out" Any young graduate from the University Law School knows that the legisla- ture cannot exercise power, and com pei court to set aside or disregard former decision in the same matter, because the State lends its name to . suitor to enable him to bring Q suit to renew the same contention. Since the Minnesota and North Carolina cases at least, no one now questions the rightfulness of the decision rend- cred by me. before those cases were decided, that an injunction in a case like these. to prevent civil suits or criminal procedinge against carriers in other courts. to test rates pending q final hearing in the court first ob- faining jurisdiction, Is in no sense c suit against the State, or in any way offensive to It's dignity. or its just rights regarding Focal affairs" or otherwise. The Governor does not fully appreciate the intelligence of the people. if he thinks that there is any feeling other than that of qualification that these statutes met the fac which befell them.
 .rx------. n-s .- x,~m-a..s~- .s
 sand.
 The Governor insinuates. though he does not directly say so. that the judge on two occasions years before he became judge. had expressed an opinion upon the ''reasona bieness of the rates, like those before the court. The instances that he cites is that the judge. in common with a ma jority of the legislature in 1884, voted against the bills. Capt. Bragg had introduced. not prescribing particular rates, but to enlarge the powers of the Comrnis- sion. the real purpose of tho statutes being to enable the Commission to ef- feet change in certain interstate rates from points in Georgia and eise- where which operated harshly upon opelika and Union Springs was convinced the State could not direct- Iy or indirectly regulate interstate commerce. Moreover. some of the fea- lures of the bill were extremely tyran- nicai and harsh. and the adoption of the bills would have gone a long way to check the development of our State by railroads. which at that time had just begun to reach full tide.
 Railroads in The Hands of Receivers.
 The other instance. was while was Governor in "1sso-1ss4." Governor Conner asked executive influence in the passage of bills. which he framed giving power to "equalize freight rates and prevent discrimination" recall but one interview with him on