Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1890-07-26

pretS ana apples Tor ltselL The state
has no power to impart to him immu-
nifty from responsibility to the supreme
authority Of the United States The
State OF Kansas is not party to this
record and the injunction, II granted,
operates not upon the State as such, but
upon WEIGH IN persoRGm. No obligation
in law or morals rests upon the county
attorney to do that which would be VIC.
lative Of the supreme law of the land, and
no right of the State can be invaded
by restraining the county attorney from
an act which, II done by him, would at
once be nullified by this court by dis
charging the prisoner again under
habeas corpus.
The threatened attempt, the opinion
continues, OF the county attorney to
proceed against the petitioner for con-
tempt after his discharge from arrest by
the United States Court, for doing that
which the Supreme Court says he has q
constitutional right to do. is an open
disregard Of the uthority Of the Supreme
Court and the United States Circuit
Court, and itwould be an anomalous state
or affairs II local officer could thus I'M
der the garb and color of State law in
conflict with the supreme law OF the
land by repeated arrests, prosecutions
and annoyances, drive the citizens from
the pursuit of lawful business, and
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 the question, the opinion contin-
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
close by an order Of injunction. Judge
Caldwell discharged him from the GRIM
inal arrest under the writ Of habeas
corpus, and now, despite the law and
the decisions Of the Federal courts,
the respondent threatens to continue to
enforce said injunction. 1t would be an
impotent Government whose judicial
branch is without the power to chal-
lenge such repeated infractions of tho
citizens personal liberty and constitu-
tional 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 for violation of the State injunc-
ton.
The opinion invokes the Four
tenth amendment, which declares that
no State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities 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 tho
equal protection of the law.
While this amendment had its
inception in the purpose to secure to
the freedmen Of the South the full en-
joyment 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.
~ most earnest appeal" the opinion
lis made by respondent to
his court to leave unmolcsted the
ulcers of the State in this controversy
% proceed to the customary channels Of
he State courts, leaving the petitioner
lis remedy, after final decision in the
curt OF last resort in the State, OF appeal
ng to the United States Supreme Court
We sensibly recognize the Importance of
he rule Of comfy invoked as essen
ial to the preservation of the harmony
nd peaceful operations between the
ourts of the two jurisdictions But
eel sure that in the coming time of dis
assionate consideration and calmer re-
ection, when the feverish excitement
popular local sentiment shall give
'ay to reason and broader National
pirit tho intelligence and patriotism
counsel will pronounce Judgment for
is constituents acquittlng the Federal
ldiciary in this controversy of the inn
utation of unduly interfering when
hey are executing the high behests of
ne Federal Constitution. Is it not
lther the respondent and his abettors
no should recognize the rule of comfy? I
he Supreme Court of the United States
rs declared so much of the law OF /.
ansas as prohibits the impor i
ton Of liquors. ETC., into {
10 State and therein in the original =
Ickages as unconstitutional. The !
nited States Circuit Judge, in obedi- a
ice to his oath Of Office, has reafirmed q
ID applied that decision to these prose- =
Itions. Until Congress shall inter =
'se and confer upon the State the right h
regulate this matter, loyalty to tho b
preme law of the land, and the obliga- .
IN of good citizenship demand that 9