evidence may tend to criminate the person giving such evidence shall not excuse such person from testifying or such corporation producing its books and papers, but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, in such proceeding: Provided, That the provisions of an act entitled "An act to expedite the hearing and determination of suits in equity pending or hereafter brought under the act of July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled 'An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,' 'An act to regulate commerce,' approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or any other acts having a like purpose that may be hereafter enacted, approved February eleventh, nineteen hundred and three," shall apply to any case. prosecuted under the direction of the Attorney General in the name of the Interstate Commerce Commission. CONFLICTING LAWS REPEALED. Section 4. That all acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed, but such repeal shall not affect causes now pending, nor rights which have already accrued, but such causes shall be prosecuted to to a conclusion and such rights enforced in a manner heretofore provided by law and as modified by the provisions of this act. Section 5. That this act shall take effect from its passage. THE EXPEDITION ACT. AN ACT TO EXPEDITE THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF SUITS IN EQUITY PENDING OR HEREAFTER BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT OF JULY SECOND, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROTECT TRADE AND COMMERCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES," "AN ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE," APPROVED FEBRUARY FOURTH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY. SEVEN, OR ANY OTHER ACTS HAVING A LIKE PURPOSE THAT MAY BE HEREAFTER ENACTED, AS AMENDED BY AN ACT, APPROVED JUNE TWENTYFIFTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND TEN. (PublicNo. 310). EXPEDITION OF CASES. HEARING BEFORE THREE JUDGES. WHEN CIRCUIT COURT IS DIVIDED IN OPINION. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: That in any suit in equity pending or hereafter brought in any circuit court of the United States under the act entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or any other acts having a like purpose that hereafter may be enacted, wherein the United States is complainant, the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance, a copy of which shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to each of the circuit judges of the circuit in which the case is pending. Thereupon such case shall be given precedence over others and in every way expedited, and be assignel for hearing at the earliest practicable day, before not less then three of the circuit judges of said (circuit) court, if there be three or more; and if there be not more than two circuit judges, then before them and such district judge as they may select; or, in case the full court shall not at any time be made up by reason of the necessary absence or disqualification of one or more of the said circuit judges, the justice of the Supreme Court assigned to that circuit or the other circuit judge or judges may designate a district judge or judges within the circuit who shall be competent to sit in said court at the hearing of said suit. In the event the judges sitting in such case shall be divided in opinion (the case shall be certified to the Supreme Court for review in like manner as if taken there by appeal as hereinafter provided.) as to the decision or disposition of said cause, or in the event that a majority of said judges shall be unable to agree upon the judgment, order, or decree finally disposing of said case in said court which should be entered in said cause, then they shall immediately certify that fact to the Chief Justice of the United States, who shall at once. designate and appoint some circuit judge to sit with said judges and to assist in determining said cause. Such order of the Chief Justice shall be immediately transmitted to the clerk of the circuit court in which said cause is pending, and shall be entered upon the minutes. of said court. Thereupon said cause shall at once be set down for reargument and the parties thereto notified in writing by the clerk of said court of the action of the court and the date fixed for the reargument thereof. The provisions of this section shall apply to all causes and proceedings in all courts now pending, or which may hereafter be brought. APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT. EXCEPTION. Section 2. That in every suit in equity pending or hereafter brought in any circuit court of the United States under any of said acts, wherein the United States is complainant, including cases submitted but not yet decided, an appeal from the final decree of the circuit court will lie only to the Supreme Court and must be taken within sixty days from the entry thereof: Provided, That in any case. where an appeal may have been taken from the final decree of a circuit court to the circuit court of appeals before this act takes effect, the case shall proceed to a final decree therein, and an appeal may be taken from such decree to the Supreme Court in the manner now provided by law. COMPLAINT NO. 36. G. A. MALSBURY, ET AL., of Craig, VS. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY. Filed January 16th, 1908. Asking that passenger trains stop on signal. Heard January 1, 1909. February 13, 1909, order issued as follows: CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA. ORDER NO. 158. A. H. SHIPLEY AND ED PARKS, Plaintiffs, VS. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant. GEO. A. HENSHAW for Complainants. C. L. JACKSON for Defendant. The complainants representing petit.oners of Craig, which is on a spur of the defendant's railroad, three and one-half (32) miles west of Shawnee, asks for passenger trains Nos. III and 112 to stop on flag. Findings of the Commission by A. P. Watson. The evidence shows that up to statehood, which was November 16, 1907, the defendant's trains Nos. 111 and 112, had been stopping at Craig for the purpose of taking on and putting off passengers, when flagged; after that date, they refused to stop. The complainant showed that this is a thickly populated section of the country, situated on the opposite side of the North Canadian River from Shawnee; that at times the road across this river becomes impassable by high water and otherwise. That the citizens. cannot go to and from Shawnee, which is their trading point. They further showed that this spur is located in a rich fertile valley where there is loaded over one hundred (100) cars of potatoes and corn per year. The defendant's witnesses testified that it would take about five (5) minutes to stop and start their trains and get up speed again, and also showed that the west bound train made no connections with any other train at Oklahoma City, which was the terminal of that train. And also showed that the train going east made connections at Atoka with the main line trains from Dennison to McAlester and north, and that they had about forty-five (45) minutes of extra time at Atoka. Therefore, the time of five (5) minutes lost in stopping and starting this train on flag would not interfere with their making connections with any trains at either end of their road. The Commission is of the opinion and also orders that trains Nos. III and 112, stop on flag for the purpose of taking on and put ting off passengers, when they desire. The same to take effect February 20, 1909. By doing such, they will not interfere with theischedule on other divisions of thei" road at either end of their line. Guthrie, Oklahoma, February 13, 1909. June 24, 1909, case certified to Supreme Court. COMPLAINT NO. 51. W. L. GILCREASE, ET AL., of Weleetka, VS. MIDLAND VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY. Filed January 27, 1908. Asking for depot and train facilities. Heard August 19 and 20, 1908. May, 14, 1909, order issued follows: CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA. W. L. GILCREASE, ET AL., of Weleetka, Complainants, VS. MIDLAND VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant. On January 27, 1908, W. L. Gilcrease, et al., citizens of the town of Weleetka, filed a complaint with the Commission requesting that the Midland Valley Railroad Company be required to build a depot and other facilities at the town of Welectka. The case came on for a hearing on August 19 and 20, 1908, and the evidence in the case showed that the town of Bixby is between 3.5 and 4 miles west of Weleetka and the town of Leonard is 1.5 miles east of Weleetka. The evidence further shows that one of the principle reasons assigned why the depot should be built at Weleetka was on account of the Indian Mission near Weleetka. It is further shown that the Mission is 1.5 miles from Leonard and 1.25 miles from Weleetka. The distance between where the station is now located and where another station is desired is only .25 of a mile. It is further shown by the evidence that there was a controversy in the location of this depot between the railroad company and the citizens of Weleetka and the railroad company and the citizens of Leonard, but this part of the evidence the Commission has not given. any consideration, for the reason that the matter to be determined is where is the best place for the depot to meet the requirements and reasonable necessities of the citizens living in this community, as the towns of Weleetka and Leonard are small and only have one business house each. The Commission is of the opinion that depots located 1.5 miles apart in localities as sparsely settled as this is entirely too close and the conditions are not such as to make it impossible for the citizens of this community to receive thei. freight at Leonard and haul their products for shipment in to that town. It is therefore ordered by the Corporation Commission that the above entitled cause be dismissed. Guthrie, Oklahoma, May 4, 1909. COMPLAINT NO. 107. THE CITY OF HARTSHORNE, VS. SOUTH MCALESTER-EUFAULA TELEPHONE COMPANY. Filed March 16, 1908. Violation of contract. The case has been continued from time to time on account of a case pending in the Supreme Court. Still pending. COMPLAINT NO. 110. APACHE MILLING CO., of Apacne, VS. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO, Build and maintain additional side track. The evidence was taken on May 9, 1908, and an order issued as follows: CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA. APACHE MILLING COMPANY, Complainant, VS. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., Defendant. On May 17, 1908, complainant filed petition with the Corporation Commission, alleging that the defendant maintained in adequate switch tracks to properly care for the shipping interests at the town of Apache, Oklahoma, and asked that the defendar. be required to build an additional side track along its right-of-way on the east side thereof, near the south line of the station grounds of the defendant. That the defendant filed an answer denying the authority of the Corporation Commission to interfere with the management or control of said property; that same was built through Indian Territory and Oklahoma by virtue of contract between the United States and the defendant, and that the only source of authority or control of its property was vested in its officers. On the 9th day of May, case coming on to be heard, the complainant was represented by George A. Henshaw, Assistant Attorney General, and the defendant by C. O. Blake, Attorney, it was admitted during the progress of the trial by the defendant that switch |