The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-08-08
SUSTAIN RULING
 TO SHOW CAUSE.

(Continued from Page One)
 raise all questions involved in the ad-
 From this lengthy hearing. after full presentation of the respective claims of all parties in interest, feet satisfied that the alleged rights of the plaintiffs on the facts set forth in the bill of complain are not free from doubt. Concluding thus-as l do-the temporary restraining order must be vacated.
 Tn arriving at this conclusion. it has not been necessary for me to prejudice some questions upon Whlch the parties may be at issue when the matter is fully heard before the en- larged court or three judges, winch will hear and determine the prayer for relief as to granting the 1nterloc- utory injunctions which is sought m the bill of complaint, nor 1t IS neces- sary, at this time. to pass upon the constitutional question presented by the bill of complaint
 .HThe power of the court to revoke the temporary restraining order has been challenged and in support of that contention plaintiffs rely upon Section 26,, of the Judicial Code, together with the decision of the supreme Court of the United States in Exparte Metropolitan Water company, of West Virginia, 220 U. S. 539, interpreting that section of the code.
 "A careful examination of both authorities discloses that plaintiffs nave m1SCOnCe1VeQ the 1eSdl 11llpOIi of the statute and the decision. The statute specifically provides that a single judge:-
 If of opinion that irreparable loss or damage would result to the com p1ainant unless temporary restrain ing order is granted. May grant such temporary restraining or der at any time before such hearing and determination of the application for an interlocutory, but such tenn porary restraining order shall only remain in force until the hearing and determination of the application for an interlocutory injunction upon mo- tice as aforesaid
 !. "The continuation of the extraor- dinary remedy of a temporary re- straining order, can only be justified when it appears that the plaintiffs rights are free from doubt-and not otherwise-in addition to the allega- tion that irreparable damage will re- suit.
 Plaintiffs have urged that .irrepar- able damage will ensue to them if the temporary restraining order is not continued, but conceding this claim to keeping the order in force, for such a result would be supported by at least a belief by the court, that the plaintiffs have substantial rights ana that in all probability such rights wip be recognized by the statutory tri- bunal of three judges, which alone is charged with the duty of passing on the consitutionality of the state statute and issuing an interFocutory injun ction As already suggested, af- ter full hearing of the respective claims of law made by all parties con- cerned, 1t cannot now be said that plaintiffs rights, if any, are substan- tia1 and that there is a probability of sustaining the claims urged in sup port of such claimed rights
 ''The rights ofthe state to enforce it's law by it's own instrumentalitieS is paramount and should not be inter fered with by the federal government except in clear and convincing cases
 Under this statute, a limitation Of time is fixed during which the tenn porary restraining order IS ip effect, btu nothing appears in the statute, which will prevent court or equity which has issued an order, from re- voking or modifying the same wher- ever justice requires that such action be taken.
 'eNor does the Metropolitan Water Power case, suprs, held that the 1nd1- vidual judge who issued such tenn porary restraining order. for in that case, as stated by MT Chief Justice White, on page 542:
 The question for decis1o9 IS whether ,purspant to the act or con gress referred to, the circuit court composed only of one judge had power to hear and determine the ap- pA1CdIIon TOT a IempOIdiS aiijoi.S<Aoi in the couse pending in the c1rcult court of Kansas
 And a careful reading of the opinion in full, fails to disclose any principle of law for which the plain tisf 50 earnestly contend, to the -e9fect that:
 "A temporary restraining order, suspending on constitutional grounds, the enforcement of a state statute by restraining the action of a state officer hereunder cannot be vacated.
 'To hcld would man1festly nul1ify the bread equity powers or the court, which were so urgently ln- voked by the plaintiffs in the first in stance.
 Therefore, becomes necessary to revoke and nullify the temporary re- straining order, issued July 2oth-
 '1n order to avoid confusion and possible injustice and for the thorough dissemination of this order, such reyo- cation, and annulment of said tenn porary restraining order is stayed un- til Monday, August 8, 1921, at 12 o'clock, midnight. Standard t1me)
 'The rule to show cause IS sustain ed and the temporary restraining or der is vacated, and it is so ordered.v
 These neonlo who can't drive an