1 88 THE GRANGER MOVEMENT 



to the provisions of the law. Attorney- General Sloan then made 

 application to the supreme court of the state for leave to bring 

 quo warranto proceedings against these companies. 1 The answer 

 of the railroad forces to this move on the part of the state was 

 the application of certain Northwestern bondholders to the 

 circuit court of the United States for an injunction to restrain 

 the company, the railroad commissioners, and the attorney- 

 general from applying or enforcing the rates of the Potter law 

 on the Northwestern lines. The case was finally argued in 

 July with Supreme Justice Davis and Circuit Justices Drum- 

 mond and Hopkins on the bench. Among the attorneys for 

 the plaintiffs was Hon. C. B. Lawrence, ex-chief justice of 

 Illinois, who had lost his seat on the bench as a result of the 

 Granger movement in that state, while Attorney- General Sloan 

 was assisted by Hon. L. S. Dixon, ex-chief justice of Wisconsin. 

 Three days were devoted to the argument of the case. The 

 principal contention of the plaintiffs was the confiscatory nature 

 of the act, while the defendants relied on the reserved powers 

 of the legislature to alter or repeal charters. On July 4, the 

 court by a unanimous decision overruled the motion for an 

 injunction. 2 Appeal was at once taken to the United States 

 Supreme Court and the decision of that body, when it was finally 

 delivered in October, 1876, several months after the Potter 

 law had been repealed, affirmed the decision of the lower 

 court. 3 



July 8, 1874, four days after the decision of the United States 

 circuit court, the attorney-general tried another method of 

 securing observance of the law. He filed a bill in equity in 

 the state supreme court complaining of the violation of the law 

 by the Northwestern and St. Paul companies and asking that 

 they be enjoined to obey it. Following an eight days' legal 

 battle in August, the decision was delivered by Chief- Justice 

 Ryan on September 15. The court declared the law a valid 



1 Railroad Commission, Reports, 1874, division iii. 17-26. 



2 Ibid. 26-28; American Annual Cyclopedia, 1874, pp. 808-810; Tuttle, Wis- 

 consin, 645-651. 



3 94 United States, 164; Illinois Railroad Commission, Reports, 1877, pp. 22-24; 

 Wisconsin Railroad Commission, Reports, 1875, appendix B. 



