The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1913-01-30
BYRNE HITS BACK
At PAPER THAT
ASSALED MESSAGE
Gives History Of Rate
Case, Showing the
Courts Delay.
o USING SHIELD
Governor Declares de Has.
No Friends to Potect or
Enemies, to unlsh.
+, ernor Byrne be.

non, Wulcn co.
discussed his message:
..,,v a,,, ION is called TO an edit
.,;a, :. Argus-Leader. in criti-
- 1T of my message to the
'aa;n,a4i, and especially to the
So. statement in that editorial
.1s.ce' made by me to the delays
oindrances caused by the feder-
- JJurts in the enforcement of the
rs of the legislature and orders of
e ,oald of railroad commissioners,
rduce freight and passenger rates
nd secure just and fair treatment
roy the railroads.
"Unfortunate' i'm what way?
'1early the idea is that ii was
'~unrtunate' politically, because in
vohg some of my alleged political
frids. This shows a peculiar mis-
co,ption on the part of men of the
Npf the editor OF the Argus-Lead-
ere has not caught the spirit of
message or the purpose behind it,.
| say to him that | have no in
TEN to protect any one, nor to re
ilOn amy one except as stated in
bl;language; and If it We're true,
wy, by the way, it is not, that the
dts were caused by neglect or in
acy ON the part OF the attorney
gals office, | would not consider
it Fortunate that my statements
nj be construed to reflect ON my
slsed political friends. | am
pig no %favorites, and in the per
fance OF my official duty. know
ner friend o foe, except such as
me d friend or foe OF the common
&C
Challenges Contradiction
v statements in regard 10 the
ds caused by the court and it's
inference with state officers i'll the
diarge of their official duties, are.
| eve, couched in fairly plain Ian
gu. that the average person may,
ullstand. | challenge the success
fuintradiction of any of them.
the paragraph quoted by the
Ag-Leader | referred TO che TACT
REPRESENTATIVES, OF the rallroads
bosd that within thirteen minutes
of time the governor had signed
thet fixing passenger rates at two
cel a mile, they had secured from
theederal judge at Sioux Fails
aeav three hundred miles away, a
wping injunction to prevent its
increment. Such ,oast seems TO
au been fully warranted by the
les. | felt then, IS now, Illuminated
the spectacle OF a judge of the
States court lending himself
The agent for a great
~rporation to prevent d fair eNamIn-
ion into the question as to whether
. MOI the rates fixed by the law
ere lust aid reasonable, apparently
ting pa in hand, awaiting the
lick of ne telegraph to report the
,g1ine Of the bill which he had
,svr cen, and OF the contents of
mic he could know nothing with
artnty, that he might instantly
nteere to prevent its enforcement.
Nhthis extreme anxiety? Why this
cerm assumption that the law must
be ong, and that the courts and
lawflicers of the state would do
lore to the rights OF these cor
poIons if allowed to proceed? And
wille Argus-Leader say that this
is fault OF the attorney general
or predecessor?
ack on Sanborn's Decision.
id now. as to the charge that
thetorney generals office has
bederelict in pressing this matter
to final conclusion. and specific
all,at the past and present attor-
memorials have failed to call up
thiase for action on the report OF
thaster of chancery. The masters
reg was filed o September IA.
10 The case was then ready for
coIeration by the court. for con
firion or rejection OF the masters
rep Previously, on April s, 1911,
thccision had been handed down
in celebrated Minnesota case.
Thuecision was by Judge San
borsenior circuit judge OF the
Uni States district court for the
- district. OF which South Da-
kos a part. In that opinion Judge
Sarn laid down rules of law adj
veto the interest OF the public, at
onso startling and far reaching
in lr effect that at d convention OF
thdsociatiCn of Attorneys Genera
of. various states, a committee
wappointed to file a brief in the
UH States Supreme Court in that
casgainst the position taken b!
Juf Sanborn. the attorney genera
of S state was a member OF tina
coittee and participated in the
prcation of the brief. The atten
tiof the boards of railroad com
miners of Nebraska, Iowa, Kan
sasklahoma, Missouri. Texas, No
Dea and South Dakota having
bedirected in the sweeping effec
of Minnesota decision adverse II
,heople of the state, they likeWis'
ipnted a committee to file a brie
in : case. The attorney general o
thtate was also a member of tina
coittee and participated in tn
prcation of the brief. The COVER
noof sixteen states assembled il
contion also appointed a commit