Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-03-18
Oregon Short Line Attorney De-
Clares District Attorney
Without Right.
IN o. S. Icon. WAGON CASE
Judge i,itchic Reserves lis Decision
Ia the Matter AMI Allow- Mr.. Booth
Opportunity 10 Answer.

When Hiram r. Booth. United states
district attorney attempted To- inter-
yene Boz behalf of the interstate COM
morcc commission in the case of the
Oregon short Line Railroad company
araiust the Consolidated Wagon e. Ma
chine contrary. which WIS brought To-
recover Sl5-1s. Discrepancy 600 a
freight rate. Atty George w Smith.
representing tho railroad company. OBJ
iected and declared that t was an
other attempt OF government official
to dominate the courts OF this county
and teu the Judge what to do. Judge
Morris T.. Richie. before whom the
case WAS called this morning in the
Third district court. reserved his de-
cI-.uu ou this point, but allowed Mr.
Booth 90 Doe entered as associate couu-
SEQ for the defendant and his arEu-
mont Hiu boz heard at l0 o'clock Satur-
day morning
The railroad company accepted
shipment of freight for the Cousoli-
dated Wagon q Machine company from
Spencer. Ida, Ca Yellowstone Wyo in
October zoos. and charged the company
10 cents per 200 pounds when the rate
was published the interstate commerce
commission rejected IL because it ought
to have been 10 cents per 100 pounds.
when the attention OF the railroad
company was brought 10 the discrep-
ancy the company claimed that IT. was
"a mistake and the suit was Immediately
Instituted TO collect the difference.
which amounted 90 approximately $50.
BASIS OF OBJECTION
IN arguing his objection 10 allowing
the government TO intervene, Atty.
Smith declared that the government
had no legislative right Co iutorueddlc
in this case.
"If the railroad company did not bur-
sue this suit and attempt 20 collect tine
discrepancy between the tariff received
and the schedule rate adopted by the
commi sion. the corporation would be
liable 20 criminal prosecution and a
heavy fine Why does the government
want Co intcrmeddlo iu this case. II is
simply tho effort OF "a government Of
ncial To- dominate the courts and say.
L want to tell the court what 10 do
"The government has no more right
to intermediate in this case than II
would in suit over the title of land
taken up under the homestead right.
I do not think that the district attor-
ney knows any more about this case
than James Movle the attorney for
the defendant and 7 object To- him be-
ing entered as am attorney for the
government The government has not
filed "a bin in Intervention or shown
any Of it's rights iu this case
"But there Is a precedent established
Ga this natter interjcctcd District
Attorney Booth.
SMITH REVIEWS PRECEDENT.
Eyes. and ] know the history of that
precedent" rctortcd Mr. smith. Ed
ward p Mosley, of the commission. was
the spirit behind IL. and he is the
spirit behind this intermodding. In
the case Of johnson against the Union
Pacific Railroad company Mosley called
upon the president personally and the
chief justice Of the United States was
called into the conference and n writ
Of ccrtiorari was demanded and later
10 was issued That Us the history Of
that case, and Mt Booth has been
called in 10 intervene IN this matter
under that precedent"
District Attorney Booth was allowed
To state his grounds for applying for
an order of Intervention. "In the first
place" ho said. "the rate which the
railroad company attempted 10 file with
the commission was rejected in accord
aucc with certain sections ~ the in
tcrstuto commerce law. Secondly, that
the commission had q right 10 reject
this tarin by the authority given IL
and thirdly that without this power
tho commission would be unable To- per-
form tho duties that were conferred
upon 10 10y this Interstate commission
law