of September, 1906, and May, 1907, and the acts of April 4, 1907, and April 18, 1907, were, in the penal. ties prescribed ? for their violation, so drastic that no owner or operator of & railway property could invoke the jurisdiction of any court to test the validity thereof, except at the risk of confiscation of its property, and the imprisonment for long terms in iails and penitentiaries of its officers, agents and employ/s. For this reason the complaln?nts alleged that the above-mentioned orders and acts, and each of them, denied to the defendant railway company and its stockholders, inclvd?ng the eom- plaimmts, ? the equal protection of the laws, and deprived it and them Of their property without due proecru of law, and that each of them was, for that reason, uneonstitutions/and void. The bill slso contained an averment that if the railway com- pany should fail to continue to observe and keep in force or to observe and put in force the orders of the Commloa?on ?nd the acts of April 4, 1907, and April 18, 1907, such fsilure might r? ult in an setion against the coml?ny or crjmln?l procee?llu? �? dmst its officers, directors, sgents or employes, subjecting ? company and such officers to an endless number of actions st law and criminal proceedings; that it the company should fsil to obey the order of the Commition or the sets of April 4, 1907, and April t8, 1907, the said Edwsaxt T. Young, as A? �torney General of the State ol? Minn _o?ota, would, as complain- ants were advised, seal believed, institute proceedings by mS?ncl?mus or otherwiee ?s?slnst the railway company, its officers, directors, agenta or employ&, to enforce ?id orders and all the provisions thereof, and that he thxeatened and would take other proceedings against the company, its officers, etc., to the ssme end and for the eame purlx?., and that he would on such failure institute m?ndalnus or other proceedings for the purpose of enforcing said acts and each thereof, and the provisions and permlties thereof. Appropriste relief by injunction agsinst the action of the defendant Young and the railroad commission was asked for.
�
