Oxford eagle. (Oxford, Lafayette Co., Miss.) 1876-current, 1921-11-10
STATE WINS VICTORY
In RAIL MERGER CASE

High Tribunal Declares War Measures
Did Not Protect Carriers From
Collection Of Penalties and Sends
Case Back.
jackson, Miss, Nov. THE ia
nous railroad merger case was decid-
ed in supreme court today in favor
of the state of Mississippi. This was
the case Of the state against the
Southern Railway Company, the Mo-
bile & Ohio, the New Orleans &
Northwestern, the Alabama Great
Southern, the Alabama & Vicksburg
and what is now known as the CO.
lumbus & Greenville. The attorney
general brought suit against these
roads in 1912, charging them with yio-
lations of the Mississippi laws against
trusts and combines and merging OF
competing lines of railroad. The case
was before the supreme court today
on the question as to whether the
United States war measures operated
to protect the railroads against the
state statutory penalties. The SUI
preme court held that neither the
Clayton antitrust act of October, 1914,
the act Of March 81, 1918, providing
for the federal control of railroads,
nor the federal transportation act of
Feb. %, 1920, interfere with the power
of the state to punish railroad corpo-
rations for violations of its laws COM
mitted by such corporations prior to
the enactment Of said federal statutes.
Under this decision the case now
goes back to the Chancery Court of
Lauderdale County, which meets at
Meridian next Monday, and Attorney
General Frank Robertson states that
he will endeavor to get an immediate
hearing on the facts. All dispositions
have been taken and it only remains
for the lower court to take up these
and decide whether or not the rail-
roads have been guilty of violating
the state laws. II they are finally adj
Judged to be guilty they may be as
sessed with heavy penalties and may
also have their charters forfeited and
their right to do business in the
state cancelled. The opinion in the
case as read by Chief Justice Smith
follows:
Text of Opinion.
"At the November, 1913 term of the
court below the appellant exhibited
its bill charging the continuous viola
tion by the defendants, since 1895, Of
Section 1907, 1850, 1857, and 4437
Code of 1892 which now appear as
Sections 4O67, 5000, and 5005, Code of
1906 Hemingway's Code, Sections
$685., 1921, and 1887. by which the
consolidation of competing railroads
and the making Of contracts or agree
ments in restraint Of trade etc; are
prohibited. The penalty imposed by,
these statutes, and herein sued for
includes the forfeiture of domestic
charters, and Of the right to do
business in this State. Several of the
defendants are domestic corporations
and all of them are engaged in in
terstate commerce.
"ln September, 1919, the court below
dismissed the appellants bill, pursu-
ant to motion filed by the appellees
praying therefor the ground Of which
is that the appellees' railroads had
been taken over by the director-gen-
eral of the railroads pursuant to the
act of Congress approved March II,
1918, entitled AN act to provide for
the operation Of transportation sys-
TENS while under federal control, for
the just compensation of their ownes
and for other purposes which act
does not permit the further prQsecu-
ton of this suit.
"The act of Congress here invoked
can have no bearing upon the appel
lant's right to punish the appellees
for any past violations by them Of its
laws. 1t may be that decree against
the appellees could not have been en-
forced to the extent of interfring
with the operations Of their railroads
by the director-general while they
were under his control, but as to that
we are not now called on to express
an opinion, for that fact, if such itbe,
would at most have only suspended
the full enforcement of the decree
while the appellees' railroads were
being operated by the director-gen-
eral.
But 1t is contended by the appellees
that the decree of the court below
should be affirmed if for any other
reason II was without i,1ri sdictinn RI !