The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-03-29
SELHEIMER KNEW
 OF RATE AGREEMENT
 DECLARES GOVERNOR
Continued from Page one)

pons by parties who had paid the l original rates as fixed by the railroads He knew that in the agreement which was made by MT. Conner that all claims against the railroads on account of such coupons were in that agreement waived and he knew that the question of a waiver vel non of these coupons, while not one of the original ques-
 tions in the case. was so involved.
 Knowing that liability on account of coupons had been waived in the agree ment made by MT. Conner, in which no doubt he was consulted, it was reason able for him to suppose that the question as to the coupons would be taken up in enc form or another fn the recent set clement. He does not pretend that he made any inquiry as to this, and, in view of the fact that MT. Selheimer is a very able and careful lawyer, he must have considered the question of coupons as of small moment. as he did not even take the trouble to inquire spout it. As mat ter of fact, however, the agreement did not become final on the day on which the attorney general communicated with MT. Selheimer. It lacked at that time the signatures of the two associate con- mssioners. and the approval by me was conditional that the other two commis- sioners should also approve it. The agree
 
 the attorney general communicated with MT. Selhemer On that same day the attorney general mailed 70 MT Selheimer at Birmingham a complete copy of the agreement, so that at least a week be- fore the agreement became final MT. Sell heimer was in possession of a copy of the text of the agreement, containing all it's terms and stipulations. No objection was heard from him until long after the agreement became final. He had ample tune within which to make strenuous ob- jections, but by his silence he consented. The great and primary question in the rate litigation was whether the state had the power to control and regulate rail- road corporations operating in this state; and whether the rates ss fixed by the state were reasonable and valid. These were the principal if not the only ques- tions brought in Issue when the litigation was commented. The question as to tho rights of holders of coupons to collect them arose only as a mere incident since the commencement of the litigation
 MT. Selheimer is a lawyer of ability and a gentleman of high character, and I am quite sure that he would not hesitate to say that the recent orders of the courts refusing temporary injunctions against the establishment of the 21b-cent rate were made at the very threshhold of that litigation, and that the railroad com pahies, had they so deSlred, could have continued to litigate this question for years to come, involving the state in vast expense, turmoil and agitation. I do not believe that any thoughtful man would have considered it wise or beneficial to the state to have continued this litigation for the benefit of the unknown parties with unknown interests, when the rall- roads were ready and willing to surren- der every vital question of policy and principle in the case. Through this agree ment the supremacy of the state is ac- knowledged, the justice of the passenger fare agreed upon, the right of the railroad commission without interference from the federal courts to fix reasonable freight rates sustained, and vet MT. Selhein,er appears to think that all this should have been left to the chances of litigation in order to possibly benefit few specula- tors in these coupons