Omaha daily bee., 1893-06-10
4 nRoAp ANo sorNp pRiNcnLn.

The federal courts have unhasitatingly
asserted their authority recently in nu-
merous cases where the question OF their
jurisdiction as against that Of the state
courts was involved. In view OF the
promptness manifested in some OF these
instances IL seems strange that n doubt
should arise as TO whether they can be
relied on even at all to determine cases
in which the trusts and other combines
OF capitalists are parties to the proceed
ings.
Thus, several sherifrs in South Caro-
lima, under specific orders of the gov
ernor Of that state, seized for non-pay-
ment Of taxes property of several rail
roads which were in the hands of re-
ceivers appointed by the federal court.
Hence arose conflict of state and ma
tional authority. The federal court at
Charleston thereupon, in February last
arrested ana fined the sheriifs for con-
tempt, and Governor Thlman proceeded
to bring the matter to. the supreme
court by habeas corpus. That court de-
MED the writ in an opinion sustaining
the lower court in every particular.
In Missouri the United States digtrict
court in March last declined to release
from imprisonment certain county
judges who refused to levy special tax
ordered by that court to pay certain
railway bonds claimed to be fraudulent.
And yet the refusal of these state repre-
sentativcs was based on clause of the
state constitution explicitly prohibiting
special levies in such cases. The federal
courts did not hesitate to assert their
jurisdiction in these cases, which will
serve as an illustration.
However, in the case where New
York watch manufacturer who had re-
fused to join the Watch trust and had
been injured in his business by the con-
spiracy, appealed to the federal courts
for redress he found that he had no
remedy from them. Appealing to the
state courts of New York, an attempt
was made to throw his case out of court
as had been done in the United States
courts. But Judge Patterson of the
supreme court of that state ovcrrulCd
the demurrer of the trust. He held that
when any such conspiracy exists to
maliciously iniurc the business of II
competitor because he had refused to
join them in the commission of unlawful
acts the courts of the state can give him
remedy under the common law. This
is a broad principle. 1t would seem
also a sound one.
1t is readily seen that this decision
establishes q patent remedy whore the
conspiracy is of local effect. But in in
stances whore these combinations opcr-
ate over several states an appeal for
relief can only lie in federal court. For
instance, if a com pinc in any other state
attacks competitor in Nebraska the
citizen thus injured must find redress in
| the United States courts, if at all.
| Should the principle stated by Judge
| Patterson obtain recognition in the fed
| eral courts it's rigid enforcement would
render unnecessary any further legisla-
tion in restraint of the abuses these un-
| lawful combines are enabled to exercise
everywhere. 1t would seem only natural
that the attorney general would seek q
test of the power he may already have
at command to inaugurate the crusade
he has promised against these iniquitouE
capitalistic combinations.