The Globe-republican., 1890-07-23
charging the prisoner again under
ho1

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 a
constitutional right to do. is an open
disregard of the authority of the Supreme
Court and the United States Circuit
Court, and it would be an anomalous state
or affairs if 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 a 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 dis charged 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 threa tens 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 the
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 viola ton of the State injunc-
| ton.
The opinion invokes the Four
| teenth 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 lite 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 amendment had it's
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.
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 to
carry into effect the provisions of the
Fourteenth amendment. at the
next Congress following this de-
cision, and on April 20. 1871,
Congress passed an act to enforce
the provisions of the Fourteenth amend
ment and for other purposes, the first
section of which in effect declared that
any person who under color of any law,
statute, etc, Of any State shall subject
or cause TO be subjected any person
within the jurisdiction of the United
States to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges or immunities, secured by
the Constitution of the United States
shall, any such law, statute. etc, of
the State to the contrary notwithstand-
ing, be liable to the party injured in
any action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress, and
it gives express jurisdiction to the
United States courts. 1t applies to any
person, 10 matter who, officer or layman,
who does the forbidden act.
"A most earnest appeal" the opinion
concludes, KS made by respondent to
this court to leave unmOlested the
officers of the State in this controversy
to proceed to the customary channels of
the State courts, leaving the petitioner
his remedy. after final decision in the
court of last resort in the State, of appeal
ing to the United States Supreme Court
We sensibly recognize the Importance of
the rule of comfy invoked as essen
tial to the preservation of the harmony
and peaceful operations between the
courts of the two jurisdictions. But
feel sure that in the coming time of dis
passionate consideration and calmer re-
Election, when the feverish excitement
of popular local sentiment shall give
way to reason and a broader National
spirit, the intelligence and patriotism
of counsel will pronounce Judgment for
his constituents acquitting the Federal
Judiciary in this con troversy of the inn
putation of unduly interfering when
they are executing the high behests of
the Federal Constitution. Is it not
rather the respondent and his abettors
who should recognize the rule of comfy?
The Supreme Court of the United States
has declared so much Of the law of
Kansas as prohibits the impor-
tation Of liquors etc, into
the State and therein in the original
packages as unconstitutional The
United States Circuit Judge, in obedi-
ence to his oath of Office, has reaffirmed
and applied that decision to these prose-
cutions. Until Congress shall inter.
pose and confer Hpon the State the right
to regulate this matter. loyalty to the
supreme law of the land. and the obliga-
ton of good citizenship demand that
the State and its ministerial officers
should forbear to provoke the occasion