The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-26
THE STREET-RAILROAD LITIGATION

The Journal has no sympathy whatever
with the spirit of opposition to law or with
that which would discredt the judiciary or
create antagonism between state and fed
eral courts. For all such efforts it has only
censure. This is a government of law, and.
come what may, we must all abide by it,
The injunction process is as legitimate as
any other process of court, and government
by injunction is simply government by law
The federal and state courts have exclusive
or coordinate jurisdiction of certainNmat-
tiers defined by the federal and state Consti-
tutions, and our entire judiciary system is
so wisely ordered that there is no danger
of permanent clash between them If
they ever do come in collision one or the
other will discover it's error and get back
on constitutional lines
The latest phase of the street-railroad lit
igation in this city raises the question to
what extent the federal courts are bound
by decisions of the state courts regarding
the construction or validity of state laws.
When Judge Showalter granted the injunc-
ton against the enforcement of the three
cent-fare law there was no decision of a
state court on the subject. AS the suit was
brought by resident of another State,
there was no doubt whatever that the
United States Court had Jurisdiction, and
none as to the binding force of its order
In the absence of any state decision as to
the validity of the three cent-Iare law the
court was free TO decide as it pleased, and
it is still a question how far it is bound
by the later decision of the Supreme Court
affirming the validity of the law. 1t is not
accurate to say that the federal courts are
bound to follow the decisions of state
courts in regard to state laws under any
and all circumstances. The rule is subject
to some limitations. The true rule is that
the federal courts will lean to an agreement
with the state court, but in certain cases
they will exercise independent Judgment.
One of these exceptional cases is where
the question involves the alleged impair
ment of a contract, a matter of which the
federal courts have original jurisdiction.
In such case the federal courts claim
the right, under the Constitution of the
United States, to decide for themselves In
the case of Louisville Trust Company
against the city of Cincinnati. quoted and
largely relied upon by General Harrison in
his last argument, it was held:
Where a contract or obligation has been
entered upon before there has been any iu-
dicial construction of a state statute upon
which the contract or obligation depends
by the highest court of the State. federal
court obtaining jurisdiction of question
touching the validity, effect or obligation
of such a contract will. while leaning TO an
agreement with the state court, exercise an
Independent Judgment as to the validity
and meaning of suci contract. and will not
necessarily follow opinions of the state
court, constituting such statute, if such de-
cisions We're rendered after the rights in
volved in the controversy originated.
In its opinion the court said. on this
point:
The general rule touching the duty of
United States courts to adopt and follow
nounced by the highest court of the State
whose statute is involved, is We'll settled
But there are certain well-recogniZed ex-
ceptions to this general rule. One of them
is that If contracts and obligations have
been entered into upon the faith of exist
| ing judicial constructions of state statutes
| the courts of the United States will not re-
| gard themselves as under any duty to con-
| form to late decisions reversing earlier
| opinions, upon the faith of which citizens
of other States have acquired rights or as
| sumed liabilities.
That seems 10 be good law-at any rate
it is the law until overrued by the Supreme
| Court of the United States-but 1t does moi
fit the present phase of the street-railroad
litigation. The present contention turns