Norwich bulletin., 1921-08-09
Stag tney Law
 Becomes Effective
Federal Restraining Order Blocking Enforcement Has Been Revoked by Judge Thomas.

New Haven, Conn, Aug. S.-The re- straining order issued week ago Satur- day by Judge Edwin S. Thomas, under which all peace officers of the state have withheld interference with the operations of jitneys in the state will be vacated at midnight tonight by decision filed today.
 In his decision Judge Thomas says: The alleged rights of the plaintiff on the facts set forth in tf1e bill of complaint are not free from doubt. Concluding this as I do-the temporary restraining or der must be. vacated s'.. .e... I. .-. .-. S Ss
 The revocation of the order will be effective at midnight tonight. The sit uation in the jitney trolley controversy will revert to what it. was before Judge Thomas granted a temporary. restraining order. This condition. will continue pend ing a decision of the three judges who will hear the issue on Aug. IS.
 The. count. says that in arriving at the conclusion that the order must be vacated ''it has not been necessary for me to prejudge sNr1e questions upon which the parties may be as issue when the matter is fully heard before the enlarged court of the three judges, which will hear and determine the prayer for relief as to granting the interlocutory injunction which is sought in the bill of complaint, 
 upon the constitutional question present. ed by the bin of complaint.
 "The continuance of the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order can only be justified when it appears that the plaintiffs rights are free from doubt-and not otherwise-in addition to the allegation that irreparable damage will result.
 '.The rights of the state to enforce its | ta1i is mount and should not be interfered with by the federal government except in clear and convincing cases.
 The power of the court to revoke the | temporary restraining order has been challenged and in support of that conten- ltion plaintiffs reply upon section 26S of the judicial code together with the de- cision of the supreme court of the United l States is ex parte metropolitan water | company of West Virginia, 220 U. S. 5S9, interpreting the section of the code.
 "A careful examination of both. au- thorities discloses that plaintiffs have niscoi ceived the legal import of the 1 statute and the decision.' l Counsel for the jtneynaen here were to confer l lis afternoon on the next step to be taken. One matter they had in mind, l Attorne5 Arthur Klein said, was an ap- plication to Justice Brandeis of the United States supreme court for writ of mandanus against state officials.
 g9 When asl-ed what course the state police department would now pursue, Supt. Robert T. Hurley said today that he would make no move until he had been 1 officially notified of the revocation of the | injunction.
 ''Will you then begin to make arrests l promptly?' Superintendent Hurley was asked.
 Well, we are not going out and try | to snap anybodys head off, he replied | We are going at this thing on com !. mon sense basis and give everybody a chance oobey the law voluntarily. The whole jtney situation has been in such confusion that I have not attempted to lay down any definite course of action 1 but we shall see that the law is en- forced as soon are we are sure of our grounds"
 1 Chief of Police Garrett J. Farrell said today that he had not heard of the va eating of the injunction by Judge Thomas and that he was not prepared to say i what action the department would take until Commissioner of Motor Vehicles | Stoeckel had issued further suggestions for the guidance of police officials, as the chief had no doubt he would do as soon as possible.
 As soon as Motor Vehicle Commission CT Stoeckel heard of Judge Thomas ac- tion he sent messenger to New Haven to secure a copy of the order Just as soon as that copy was in his office, he said, he planned to ask police officials throughout the state to begin picking up" the now obsolete public service (P
 S) markers, drivers to be warned that they must exchange them at the capitol for legal markers. MT. Stoeckel said he did not plan to ask active prosecution of violators of the new jitney, law until af- ter the federal court hearing, Aug. Is.