The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-11-22
ROADS
WIN IT
RAILROADS WIN
IN BATTLE over
EICHT-H0UR LAW
AdamsOn Measure UncOnStitu-
tiOnaI, Says X. C. Judge.
Case Goes to U. S. Supreme
Court for Final Test.
ADMITS SNAP JUDGMENT
Court Acts Hastily in Order to
Expedite Appeal.
AdmOnishes Railroads To Be
Ready to Adopt Law.
Case Goes to U. S. Supreme
Court for Final Test.
ADMITS SNAP JUDGMENT
Court Acts Hastily in Order to
Expedite Appeal.
AdmOniShes Railroads To BE
Ready to Adopt Law.


the Adamson s-hour law cannot be
sustained" Judge William c. Hook
in the United States circuit court here
today rendered decision whlch de-
clared in effect that the law IS un-
constitutional, but allowed the defen-
dant government an appeal in open
court which it is expected will result
in a final decision by the supreme
court of the United States before Jan
uary 1, the date on which the law
was to be made operative.
In rendering his decision. Judge
Hook took notice of the fact that the
governments motion which precipltat-
ed action today in the injunction pro-
ceedings against the law, brought by
the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf rail-
road. was filed only yesterday and that
a decision was desired today. While
declaring that it was far from agree
able" for judge to render a decl-
sion without the deliberat1on neces-
sary for a decision which ne would
stand to sin every circumstance, the
Judge, in order to expedite the case,
entered a decree for the plaintiff rail-
roads.
Neither Brags of Victory.
Neither the attorneys for many
large railroad systems who were pres
ent in court. nor the brilliant array of
government counsel present would
comment on the courts decree as to
whether it was regarded as a victory
on the one hand or set back on the
other Apparently both sides regard
ed the case as a means of Fastening a
decision by the supreme court which is
the final arbiter.
Following Judge Hooks decision,
Frank Hagerman, special counsel for
the government, gave notice of an ap-
peal which will be certified by the
court late today. Mr.. Hagerman also
moved that the railroads action
against the officers of the four rail-
road brotherhoods who were made
joint defendants with the government
either be dismissed or that the broth
erhood officers be permitted to take
an appeal similar to that of the gov
ernment. This motion will be passed
on by Judge Hook at the same time.
Judge Hooks decree granted that part
of the governments motion to expe-
dite the case which requested that the
receivers for the Missouri. Oklahoma
& Gulf who We're appointed by the
court and consequently are under it's
direction, be instructed to cooperate
with the government in the appeal.
Orders Railroads to Cooperate.
Judge Hook. as forecast yesterday
in his remarks from the bench, in
structed Arthur Miller. as attorney
for the receivers, Alexander New and
Henry c. Ferris to invite representa-
tives of every railroad in the United
States to participate in the supreme
court proceedings. to the end that the
case which has caused numerous suits
thruout the United States shall be set
tied once and for all.
To safeguard the interests of the
railroad employees should the courts s
decree not be sustained by the su-
Tt1Ae n
receivers as plaintiffs to keep their
act and be prepared promptly to pay
their employees on the basis of the
Adamson law" Besides Mr.. Hager-
man. attorneys appearing for the gov
ernment included E. Marvin Under
wood, assistant attorney general of the
United States; G.. Carroll Todd, assist
ant to the attorney general; Francis
NJ. Wilson. United States district at
torney in whose name the govern
ment motions were filed, and others
Judge Hooks Decision.
Judge Hooks decision follows:
This is an independent suit to en-
join the enforcement of a recent act
of congress, commonly called the
Adamson law, upon the ground that it
is contrary to the constitution. In
the character of the averments, the
plaintiffs bill of complaint is stated
to be typical of a mum Der recently
district courts of the United States. A
motion to dismiss has been presented
on behalf of the defendant United
States attorney. The sole question
raised by it is that of the constitu
tionality of the law.
The court is informed that the
other cases stand on application for
temporary injunction. An appeal from
an order granting or refusing a tenn
porary injunction goes to the circuit
court of appeals and not further bv
ordinary procedure. while an appeal
from final order or decree in such a
case would go direct to the supreme
court of the United States In the
former decision would be inconclu-
sive; in the latter a decision would
definitely settle the question for the
whole country. The motion to dismiss
the case here. however it is decided
will promptly result in a final decree
CONTINUED on Page Two)