The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-21

ne Editor OF the Indianapolis journal:

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
Many people are in favor of the three
cent fare and wish the people to have the
benefit of the same and these people have
always claimed that the statute providing
for such fares is valid. But there are only
a few who will go to the length of assert
ing that it's validity is beyond question, or
who will insinuate as was done in a city
paper of Saturday that Judge Showalter
because he does not drop every other en-
gagement and instander revise his own rul-
ing and follow the decision of the Indiana
Supreme Court is lacking either in intelli-
gence or honesty.
The truth is that, while there is a general
rule that upon the construction of state
statutes the Federal Courts follow the set
tied course of decision in the highest courts
of the State yet to this rule there are eX-
ceptions, just as well recognized and just
as binding on the Federal Courts as the
rule itself Thus in a very recent case in
the United States Circuit Court of Appeals
of the Sixth circuit GIG r. r., 1913, Judges
Taft, Lurton and HAMMOND, in which the
question at issue was whether under the
statutes of Ohio, a street-car company had
certain rights in the streets of Cincinnati
this rule was invoked and the claim made
that the Federal Court was bound to follow
denying such rights: This claim was dis
allowed, the Court of Appeals saying:
we accordingly find that Mr.. Justice
Bradley states the rule to be that when
contracts and transactions nave been en-
tered into and rights have accrued there
on, under a particular state of DECISIONS
or when there has been no decision of the
State tribunals, the Federal Courts properly
claim the right TO adopt their own inter-
although a different Interpretation may be
adopted by the State courts, after such
rights have accrued
THE principle we deduce from this de-
cision finds support in the subsequent case
of Pleasant Township Aetna Life ms
Co. Q3S y. s. CD. where a decision made
in the State court, before action begun
was relied upon as determining the proper
Interpretation of the state statute involved
In that case the question involved the con-
stitutionality of an Ohio statute authOriZ-
ing Pleasant township to borrow money
and issue bonds for the purpose of building
a railroad. Under this statute the bonds
in question were issued Subsequently the
Supreme Court of Ohio but after the bonds
had been issued, held the statute void
under the Ohio Constitution. (Wyscover
VS. Atkinson, 81 o. St. 500
In a suit against the township upon GER
tain of these bonds, this decision of the
Ohio court was relied upon as conclusive
determination of the validity of the act
under which the bonds had been issued.
The opinion of the Supreme Court was by
Mr. Justice Brewer, who said: We are not
concluded by that determination. In mat
tiers of contract, especially the right of
citizens of different States TO ltigate in
the Federal Courts of the various States is
a right to demand the Independent iudg-
ment of those courts. The settled law in
that respect is we'll stated in the case of
Burgess VS.. Seligman Q07 L. S.. 2033)
In view of such decisions as these. rea-
sonable people will await the action of
Judge Showalter in the expectation that
he will decide the law as he understands
ii with reasonable promptness, and with in
tegrity and intelligence. Such people Will
not advise any one. while Judge Showal-
ter's injunction remains in force. 10 at