The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-10-19
N THE M'NALL CASE.
Says If Judge Williams Action
is Permitted
Federal Judges VIII Then Have
the Right TO Put
Governors in Jail and Admins
ter State Governments.

The following remarkable and start
ling editorial appears in yesterdays
Denver Republican, the leading Repub-
Hcan newspaper of Colorado:
Insurance Commissioner NIcNaH has
properly refused to grant a license to
the Mutual Life Insurance company Of
New York to operate in Kansas, not
withstanding the decision Of Judge Will
liams of the federal circuit court that
the license should be issued. Mr.. Nc
Nails refusal is right, not on the
ground that the insurance company Is
not entitled to the license, but because
a federal judge has no right to control
the action of a state officer in a matter
arising solely under a state law.
The point should be always and
clearly kept in mind that in the con-
1ict between Insurance Commissioner
McNau and the federal court the main
question is not whether, according to
the laws of Kansas, he should issue the
license or not. The main question is
whether the federal courts have right
to interfere with the action of a state
officer acting purely in his official ca
paclty as a representative of the state
If the insurance company had brought
the action in a state court. the main
question then would be whether the in
SuraEce commissioner had a right to
withhold the license. But this question
ant inquiry whether federal court can
direct how a state officer shall dis
charge his duties under a state law.
1t is not a little unfortunate that in
the discussions of this question the in
quiry has been cIOuded by considera-
tions OF whether the license was prop
erly withheld not. That matter
could easily be settled in the state
courts. The courts of Kansas are open
to the planning insurance company.
1t should have resorted to them. No
r4ra of ff,ta frr rf n fed
eral statute or of the constitution Of
the United States is involved. It IS
state matter entirely. a state officer
has pursued certain course under q
state law. The federal government has
no more right to interfere than the gov
ernment OF Germany.
It is furthermore the rule with fed
eral courts to adopt the Interpretation
given a state statute by state court
If the ruling of the state court ought to
control the decision of the federal trib-
unal, then the insurance cOmpany's &C
tiOn should have been brought Oligi-
nally in the state court. to say nothing
of the main proposition that the federal
courts have no right to interfere at all
The national constitution declares
that no action shall be brought against
Il state by citizen of another state in
a United States court. But this prOVis
ion is ignored when the federal court
| assumes in this case to control the ac-
| tiOn of the insurance commissioner of
| Kansas and compel him to accept its
| Interpretation of a state law.
If the federal courts have power to do
| this with one state officer they
! have power to do it with the governor
! himself. If a federal court can compel
| a governor to accept its Interpretation
| of a state law and lock him up in Jail
| if he refuses to do its bidding. then
| there is an end of the federal character
! of the government and union. Then a
| federal judge can take possession of a
state, appoint a receiver and run the
| government to suit itself. The more
fF7rfr ives int 10
| clearly is it seen that this assumption
| of Jurisdiction by a federal judge over
| a state officer in a purely state matter
| is not only revolutionary, but in the
/ highest degree impertfnent- 1t is hoped
/ that the national supreme court VIII
| teach aggressive federal, circuit and
| district judges to mind their own busi-
| ness and let the domestic affairs Of the
| states alone.