The daily morning journal and courier., 1894-11-20

would like to know what their legal rights will be when the proposed scheme is carried out. It Is asserted that the probable position taken by the represen- tatives of the state of Massachusetts. If an attempt was made to secure an in- Junction through the United States courts. would be that Massac chusetts as sovereign state has n right to do the acts in question; that even if such acts of the state are not justiHable by the rules of so-called international law, still, neither the state nor It's agents oan be called to account in the courts of justice for doing the acts. or, in other words, that there Is no enforci- ble remedy in a court of justice either against the state or It's agents.
 The counsel for the mill companies maintain that, while there are certain decisions which may In some degree bear out this contention, there are others that much more than neutralize these, and, in fact, give assurance that the rights of these New Hampshire mill owners cannot thus be invaded. They assert that if Massachusetts stood to New Hampshire in the same relation that France does to Spain, such an act as that proposed would constitute national grievance, which, if persisted In, would justify the suffering power in using the only means then left to ob- tain redress, that is, declaring war against the offending neighbor. But under the constitution of the United States the different states surrendered their power of making war against each other, the federal constitution i'm pliedly prohibiting such aggressions as would afford just ground for declara- tion of war if the two states were inde- pendent nations.
 As a substitute for the rights of the states to resort to war a system of com mon judicial tribunals was established to adjudicate their controversies and the controversies between their re- spective citizens, and 1t is pointed out that the otherwise imminent danger of war between the states was one of the prominent reasons urged by Hamilton in the Federalist for adopting the con- stitution. But the counsel go on to say, while under the general and im- piled powers of the constitution the ag- gressive power of the states is thus limited, a still further check is put upon them by the fourteenth amendment which says that mo state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the cit izens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within it's juris- diction the equal protection of the laws"
 This, they say, was intended to af- ford national protection to property rights in all states as against aggres- sions attempted under state statutes, and, furthermore, it is said to be settled that the requirement of due process of law is not satisfied by the formal en- actment of statute, for it must be valid statute and one which the legisla- ture has power to enact; hence, as the legislature of one state has not the power to compel the citizen of another state to part with his property rights in that state, such compulsory extra territorial action is not due process of law.
 This will make great case for the lawyers if it ever comes into court. Enough money paid to the injured mill owners would perhaps square the mat ter.