The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-03-26
Declares Roads Surrender to Every Vital Point for
 Which State COntended
| GIVES BRIEF REVIEW
 OF THE RATE FIGHT
States Old Rate Cases Were Not Ap- pealed Earlier Because Missouri Case Was Pending in Su-
 preme Court at the Time
By l.. s. BETTY

E That the recent settlement of the rail- road rate litigation is a complete sur render by the railroads of every vital point for which tEe state has contended is the opinion of Attorney General Rob- ert c. Brickell, who made public to- day a letter he hac written in answer to an inquiry concerning the adjust ment of the rate difficulties.
 Attorney General Brickell gives a brief history of the rate fight from its inception. though Ee deals almost ex clusively with tho circumstances lead ing up to the recent settlement.
 The attorney general speaks of the failure of the railroads contesting the commissions order for the establish ment of a 21a-cent passenger rate to have the commission held in contempt of court anl recites the grounds for this failure.
 He declares that the old rate cases was not appe aled to the supreme court earlier because of the fact that the Mis- souri rate case WAS pending at the time and because of the great expense which would have been entailed by appealing five cases to the supreme court. This expense. according to the attorney gen eral, might easily have been $75,000 or $100, ,000 while the cases might have remained on the docket of the supreme court several years before being de- cided.
 II Attorney General Brickells letter is as follows:
 l "The litigation between the state and the railroads began after the passage of the rate statutes by the legisla ture of Alabama in 1907. This litigation was set tied so far as the Southern and certain other roads were concerned by the rail- road commission and Governor Conner in 1908, but the Louisville and Nashville. l Western, Central and Nashville, Chatta nooga and St. Louis continued the litiga | ton until successful in the spring of 1912. Under the settlement made by the South ern and other roads with Governor Conner. there has never been anything repaid either to passengers or to shippers by reason of the overcharges made while that litigation was pending
 l Immediately after the decision of Judge Jones in favor of the Louisville and Nash vile and other roads in 1912 the railroad commission proceeded, under the authority | conferred by the code, to fix reasonable rate for the transportation of passen- gers after giving notice as by law pro- vided to the different roads,
 | ''The first road upon which the com mission, under the power vested in them by the code, fixed the rate for passengers
 
 l Nashville, cited the commission before the United States court for contempt Judge Grubb held they were not in con- l tempt for two reasons; first, the decree of Judge Jones enjoined both passenger and freight rates jointly, and not each separately, and therefore the commis- sion, in proceeding to passenger rates alone. was not violating the injunction; second, because the injunction was | against legislative acts, and not against | tho action of the commission under it's general powers.
 Each of the railroads, as fast as the orders were made by the commission re- curing them to establish a passenger rate of 21a cents per mile. applied to | the federal court and obtained a tenn porary restraining order, restraining the l enforcement of the order of the commits sion, but in each case, except the case of the Nashville. Chattanooga and St Louis, the application for temporary in junction, in which case was pending at the time of the settlement upon the hear ins before three judges as provided by l the recent act of Congress, the tenn 1 rorary injunction was denied and the temporary restraining orders dissolved thus putting the rates made by the com l mission into effect
 ''ln each of these cases it was contend | ed that the decree of Judge sJones was res adjudicata.
 When the decree of Judge Jones en- | joining the legislative rates was rendered | in 1912, the Missouri, Minnesota and Ar | kansas rate cases were pending before the supreme court of the United States and I did not believe it advisable to in cur the large expense to which the state would be put upon appeal in advance of the decision by the supreme court of the United States in these cases, and the mat ter of an appeal from the decree of Judge Jones was held in allowance
 Cases Decided for States
 "rhese cases were finally decided in favor of the states in June 1913, at which time we were engaged in resisting the applications for temporary injunctions restraining the enforcement of the orders of the railroad commission of Alabama establishing a 21a-cent passenger rate, so 1t was not until December that we were able to take the necessary steps to ap- peal to the supreme court of the United States from the decision of Judge Jones in 1912
 This is in brief statement of the condition of the railroad litigation when the recent agreement between the state and the railroads was entered into
 Missouri Rate Case | "The Missouri rate case was first argued | in the supreme court of the United States in October, 1910, and no decision reached
 
 have been entailed by the state to carry on the appeals in the five cases would l have been enormous, at least 80, 900 ex- pense for printing the records and other | expenses would have easily doubled and probably trebled this amount, and could see no hope for a final decision of these | cases inside of three years, as it would have taken from six to eight months to have completed the preparation of the | records, and the prime object of the ap- peal I had always considered to be to rid the railroad commission and the state of the embarrassment of constant pleas | of res adjudicata based upor. the decrees | of Judge Jones that remained unreversei and unappeaed from.
 The settlement in March clearly &C., eemplished that purpose, which, to my mind, was the sole reason for an ap- peal by the state.
 By this settlement the state not only obtained tue 2h -cent passenger rate as to intrastate passenger traffic, but also obtained ths concession of the same rate for interstate traffic over | which the state had absolutely no au- thority and the state regained full au- thority to deal with the freight situ- ation eitLcr through the railroad com mission or the lesislature, as 1t should see fit.
 "The settlement, as regarded it, and still regarG it. was a complete sur 1 render lN lie railroads of every vital point for which the state has conlended | and the only concl ssion made by the state was as to the refund of the ex-