The Iola register., 1890-07-25


there be no power In the courts OF the
Federal Government to prevent such
outrages and protect the citizen in the
enjoyment of . constitutional right
As applied TO the constitutional as
pect Of sAe question, the opinion ccntin-
ues there can be no difference between
shoes and beer. For exercising his
constitutional right Tuchman was ar
rested under the conflicting State law
of Kansas and his house of business
clese by an order of injunction Judge
Caldwell discharged him from the GRIM
nal arrest under the writ Of habeas
corpus. and now, despite the law and
the decisions of the Federal courts,
the respondent threatens 30 continue 10
enforce said injunction It would be an
impotent Government whose judicial
branch is without the power to .chal-
lenge such repeated infractions of the
citizen's personal liberty and constitu-
tionai right to pursue = lawful business
If arrested for such contempt this court
could discharge him again on habeas
corpus, but on respondents theory he
would and could again proceed against
him sor violation OF the State injunc-
ton M q Asttt% Ath -
The opinion fnvokes the Four
teenth amendment, which declares that
nc State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
inmunities Of citizens of The United
States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life. liberty or property with
out due process of law, nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the law.
While this amendments had its
inception in the purpose to secure to
the freedmen of the South the full en-
ioyment Of their freedom and rights, as
has been repeatedly held by highest au-
thority the generality of the language
used extends the protection of its pro-
visions to persons of every race and
color and condition against the hostile
State action of any kind. Az .a-
After the discussion by Justice Brad
ley in the slaughter house cases Of New
Orleans, Alb. 3ss, in.which he suggest
ed that the Civil Rights bill as it then
existed perhaps was not applicable, be-
cause Congress had not legislated N
carry into effect the provisions Of the
Fourteenth amendment at the
next Congress following this de-
cisiSn, and on April 20. Tss1,
Congress- passed an act 10 enfc-ce
the provisions of the Fourteenth amend
meEt and for other purposes, the first
section of which in effect declared that
any person'who under color OF any law,
seatUte, etc, of any State shall subject
or cause to be subjected any person
within the idrisdiction of the Quilted
States to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges on immunities, secured by
the'Constitution of the United States
shall, any such law, statute, etc. of
the State 20 the contrary notwisflstsnd-
ing, be Liable to the party injured in
any action sat law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress, and
1t gives express jurisdiction to the
limited States courts. 1t appliesso any
person, no matter who, oticererlarman,
who does the forbiddea act.
The opinion then proceeds -tc show
that it is among the cuscOmaryrCeme-
diestof equity to enjoin and !prevent
,ssreh wrongs It also asserts that the
injunction proceeding in the. State
court without any bond Of indemnity
and without any notice TO the .ewner
is not due process of Law. Che law
loathes a Judgment withogt a hearing.
The laws OF God and man both gave the
party an opportunity to make shis de-
fense if he has any. EveE God himself
did not pass sentence upon Adam be-
fore he was called upen to make
his defense The principle is as
old as Magma Charta- Notice must
be given to the party to be affected that
he may first have this opportunity to be
heard. A Judgment or order without
notice which touches life or liberty
would be swalton and orueL If it
touched property it would be arbitrary
eNactiol-
"A most earnest appeal, eae opinion
concludes, ''is nade by respondent to
this court TO leave unnelested the
officers Cf the State in this controversy
"a proceed TO the customary channels of
sle Stats courts leaving the petitioner
his remedy, aftsr final decision in the
ssurt OF lxst resoss in the Stase,sef appeal
ing to tbe United States Supreme Court
We sensiSly TecoS nize the Importance Il
tae ruleaof comfy invoked rs essen
tia to the preservation of the harmony
azi peact full ops-ations between the
cen-tS Of &le two jur sdictionS ButI
feel sure that in tsss coming TINE of dis
pasSionate-consideaztion and caisaer re-
fe4Sion, WIS en- the Eeverish excitement
Of, popular local sartiment shall give
way yEo ressEn and & broader National
spirit, the satellige1oe and patriotism
Of ,csznsel will pronSlnce Judgment for
his constituents acouitting the FEDERAL
Judiciary In this controversy of the i'm
pQtation of ,Induiy GnterferiRg when
hey are exeeC ting the high behezss of
the federal Consultation. Is 1t rzot
respondent Gnd his zbet.ers
rho should recognize the rule of comfy?
The Supreme Court of tse United Stases
szs declared 81 much snf the law of
Kansas as H-ohibits the impof-
;2eion of liquors, etc, ints
he State and therein In the originsI
as unconstitutional The
United States Citeuit Judge in obedr
noe fo,his oath Of Office, has reaffinne6
md epnlief that decision talthese prose-
utiGas. Until Congress shall inter
'ose and confer upoa the Stzse the right !
o regulate zhis m2 ter, loyalty to the
uprene laWe1f the land, and aae obligs- |
ion Of good citizenship demand that
he State ani its ministerial officers /
hould fOrbear 70 provoke the occasion
or the Federal Judiciary to asset their
to see that the FedeEal Con-
itution is recognized 2nd obeyeS- The