The Mena weekly star., 1910-06-16
EXTRACTS FROM
 ROGERS OPINION
Paragraphs Taken From Lengthy Ls gal Documents Giving the Court Language in Refusing Re
 straining Orders.

Fort Smith where they received the opinion from Judge Rogers in the removal case. They are both very strong in their praise of Judge Rogers and the opiri ion rendered by him, considering it one of the most able opinions ever given on the points in controver- sy and believe 1t will become q noted precedence in equitable jurisprudence.
 As set out in their complaint and IS generally known, the Kan sas City Southern is fearful of the contemplated change of d. vision on account of the multi plicity of damage suits that would arise. To overcome thls it tagreed to buy the property owned by it's employees and went: ito the feder- al count to seek to restrain the other citizens from proceeding against it.
 In the latter it has failed as Judge Rogers says that the citi- zens remedy eff they hise any ofcourse) lies In the actions for damages Tn the state courts.
 The judge did not go into this case as to the rights or merits re- garding the contract under which citizens of Msna purchased prop erty here. on the sixteen hour aw as applied to this case or any other points except as to the jurisdiction of the federal court uf equity to grant restraining orders in the case. About thirty out of the 34 pages of the opinion go to the point that he could not grant the railroad company $ restraining order and briefly without bearing On the merits of Mena's case directs the court in which its remedy would lie.
 The following are a few of the
 pointed paragraphs found in the
 lengthy opinion:
 Speaking of the company's ap-
 plication for an injunction, be says:
 1.-The bill in this case is neither
 a bill quia timet, or bill to re-
 move a cloud from the title upon real estate, or a bill of peace.
 The complainant owned and is in the quiet and undisturbed pos session of all it's properties at Mena. No one is threatening to distrub that possession and eu- joyment, by suit or otherwise; no one is doing anything or threaten lng to do anything to cloud com. claimants title. to it's properties, or interfering with its uses:on the contrary, we learn from the bill that defendants claim aud desire that complainants shall remain lu possession and continue the enjoyment and use of its said
 properties at Meua, in the future
 as in the past, unclouded and un- disturbed by them. There is, therefore, no cloudIto be remoyed.' Apain iu speaking Of the right of injunction in equity Federal court, he says:
 "Morcover, such suit in eqlity could never be maintained by the defendants if on fiual hearing If was determined that to grant an injunction against the removal of co n plainant's central division from Meua would either impose a burden on interstate commerce, create a congestion of it's traffic, impair it's service or inflict irre- parable loss upon it, or prevented the enforcement of the act of con- gress above referred to known as the Eighteen Hour Law. Such a suit to be m aintainable at all ou any ground, implies the existence of an enforceable contract be-
 tween complainant and defend ants. not in contrayention or vio-
 lative of, or illegally interfering with any of those things. Other wise the contract itself would be violatiye of the commerce clause of the constitution, or the act ol congress regulating interstate commerce enacted iu pursuance thereof. Nor do 1 think on the whole record as now exhibited any such result as multiplicity oi injunction suits by defendants is to be reasonably apprehended.
 "The rsasonableness and the soundness of this conclusion is
 demonstrated by the course this case has taken, for the defendants
 when brought into court in this case united in cross-biii the
 avowed purpose of which is to en- ioin the removal of the complain ants central division from Mena, and if the court should refus. to do that and determine 10 grant the relief sought by complainant, then it seeks to have the ds III ages sustained ty each of the defend | l rf n