The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-02-22
TEXAS TRUST CASES
Reversed aud Remandcd for Trial Ia
the State Courts.
INTERFERENCE BY FEDERAL COURT
Mas Not Warranted by the Facts 10
This Case.
NATTER CLEARLY DEALT WITH
No Reason For the Action Of the
Circuit Court.
TIE Law WAS NOT PASSED Upon
Ehc Prisoner Was Therefore Re-
mandcd 10 the custody or the
Stnte Authorities.
- 4 - =.
TIE Law WAS NOT PASSED Upon

washington. February 21.--(Special.) -
Justice Peckham of the supreme court to-
day handed down an opinion on the Texas
antitrust cases argued here. Tho decision
does not pass upon the constitutionality
merits OF the law. II simply holds that
the defendants application for writ OF
habeas corpus was wrongfully granted by
the Federal court below and revcrses and
remands the case and orders that defend
ant be again placed in custody This means
that the case must be tried in the State
courts and that the Texas supreme court
must first pass upoi the constitutionality
of the law before the United States SUI
premc court will touch that point and
Justice Peckham intimated as much IN
rendering his opinion.
The decision is very important one.
passing. as it does, on interference Win
State courts by judges of inferior Federal
courts.
Washington. February 2i.--In the case
Of William Grice and others, under indict-
ment in Texas for violating the antitrust
law OF that State. the United States su-
preme court today held that the circuit
court had interfered In granting writ oil
habeas corpus when no proper eXiSency
arose for such interference and therefore
reversed the decision, remanding the pris-
oncrs to the custody of the State oniclais.
The court did not enter upon the merits
OF the anti trust law.
Crice and others, engaged as agents for
the Standard Oil company. were indicted
in. McLennan county, Texas, on the charse
OF conspiracy against the anft-srsse law
and he appealed to the circuit court for q.
writ OF habeas CORPUS before his trial. In
deciding the case Justice Peckham said that
while the court had jurisdiction in cases
such is this nevertheless. circuit courts
ought not to exercise that jurisdiction bv
the discharge of a. prisoner unless in cases
of peculiar urgency; that instead OF dis
charging them they should leave prisoners
to b, dealt with by the courts of the States
and that after a final determination OF the
case by the State court the Federal courts
will even then generally leave the petition
er to his remedy BY writ of error from this
court
The court proceeds to say that iurisdic-
ton is an extremely delicate question Tor
the Federal courts and should not be en-
couraged unless In most exceptional cases.
After reviewing the case at some length,
the Justice adds: This whole case is
clearly nothing but an attempt to obtain
| the interference OF court o. the United
| States wheL no extraordinary or peculiar
circumstances exists in favor Of such In
| terfefence Upon the facts we think no
sufficient case was made out for the exer-
cisc of jurisdiction. We come to this de-
cision irrespective of the question OF the
| validity OF the State statute and without
passing upon the same or expressing any
opinion In regard thereto"
| He adds that II Grice's APPEAL had bean
! after conviction a different question would
have been presented, but that under tns
circumstances no other course than that
taken was possible and hence the merits
| Of tbs State law can not be entered upon.
Directions were given. therefore. FOR a
setting aside of the habeas corpus and the
order discharging the prisoner and to enter
an order demanding the prisoner 10 the
custody OF the State officials,
The effect CT the decision is TO require the
completion OF the action Of the State courts
before intervention of the Federal courts.