Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for The Beatrice Daily Express
Domestic News July 23, 1900

The Beatrice Daily Express

Beatrice, Gage County, Nebraska

What is this article about?

The Nebraska Board of Transportation plans to hold a hearing on August 6 in Omaha for John O. Yeiser's case testing its power to reduce telephone rates, despite Judge Munger's ruling that the board's creating act is unconstitutional, but the injunction applies only to railroad rates.

Clipping

OCR Quality

98% Excellent

Full Text

Nebraska Board Still in Evidence.

LINCOLN, July 23. - The Nebraska board of transportation decided to sit August 6 at Omaha and take further testimony in the case instituted by John O. Yeiser to test the law giving the board power to reduce telephone rates. This sitting is to be held at the request of Attorney General Smyth, notwithstanding that Judge Munger of the federal district has just decided that the act creating the board of transportation is unconstitutional. It is not believed that the board will be in contempt of court if it proceeds with the telephone hearing, because Judge Munger's decision in the form of an injunction relates only to railroad rates.

What sub-type of article is it?

Legal Or Court Politics

What keywords are associated?

Nebraska Board Transportation Telephone Rates Unconstitutional Act Judge Munger Court Injunction

What entities or persons were involved?

John O. Yeiser Attorney General Smyth Judge Munger

Where did it happen?

Lincoln, Nebraska

Domestic News Details

Primary Location

Lincoln, Nebraska

Event Date

July 23

Key Persons

John O. Yeiser Attorney General Smyth Judge Munger

Outcome

board decides to proceed with hearing; believed not in contempt as injunction relates only to railroad rates

Event Details

Nebraska board of transportation to sit August 6 at Omaha for testimony in Yeiser's case testing law on telephone rates, at request of Attorney General Smyth, despite Judge Munger's decision that the act creating the board is unconstitutional.

Are you sure?