The Van Buren press., 1899-09-09
IyJUsc1Ios DISSOLVED.
STATE has no Right 70 stop the In
portation Of Armed, Lawiess,
aud Diseased People From
Coming Within ifs B0r.
ders TO Work.

the county Dgdy q armed laWie77 anu
diseased men, and also the motion to
restrain the state officers from further
prosecuting the suit against them.
The decision covered about 25 pages
Of closely written typewriter matter
and thoroughly covered every point
raised b. the attorneys on both sides Of
the case.
The proceedings leading up to this de-
cision are as follows:
On April %. Joe johnson. for the
state, asked for an order from the dis.
trict court restraining the Kansas and
Texas Ceal Co. and the St. Louis and
San Francisco Railroad Co. from i'm
porting into the country large body Of
armed men of the low, lawless and dis
eased type. The injunction was grant
ed.
On the 18th Of July, the defendants
nled joint petition in the circuit court
Of Sebastian county asking for remov-
al Of the case to the Federal court. De-
fendant companies later procured a
transcript Of the records Of the case and
filed them with the Federal court, and
asked for the dissolution Of the injanc
ton granted by Judge Rowe against
them and that the state officers be re-
strained from prosecuting the suit
further.
On August 7th the state. by its attor
ney, Col Ben T. DuVal, filed motion
to dismiss the case, alleging among
other things that the Federal court had
no jurisdiction in the case, because it
was not a civil action for the enforce
ment of a right arising under the con
stitution and laws Of the United States /;
because under the constitution aud laws
Of the state Of Arkansas, the st. Louis
q San Francisco railroad company is a
domestic corporation aud therefore sub
jeot to the jurisdiction Of the courts of
the state
Judge Rogers said after explaining the
case thoroughly and disp0sing OF many
points Of the motion, that the court was
limited to the questions as to whether at
the time the jurisdiction Of the court was
invoked, it appeared from the plaintiff S
complaint that the controversy be
tween the parties involved a federal
question.
The contention of the defendants was
that the prevention Of the importation
Of men into the state was violation Of
the Interstate Commerce Law, and the
I Judge held that such was the case and
therefore became federal question.
The court held that the legislature Of
state did not have the power to enact
legislation prohibiting the class of per
sons designated from coming into the
state, and that if the legislature had
not the power to enact such laws, the
state courts therefore could not do so.
He said: 1t goes without saying that 4,
no state can exercise power over a
subject confined exclusively to congress
by the federal constitution. Let us, ,
therefore examine more analytically the
allegations in the bill describing the
class of persons it sought to prohibit
being imported into the state. They
are armed men of the low and lawless
type. How are they armed? The
bill does not say. The allegation is
broad enough to cover all kinds OF
arms
He said the constitution of the state
declared that citizens of the state had a
right to keep and bear arms for their
common defense and that persons com
ing into the state had the same rights
and privileges.
1T is not therefore one of the proba
BILE questions in the controversary in this
suit rs to whether or not the state has
the power to prohibit men who are
armed coming into the state.
1t will be observed that no overt act
is charged against any of the class o.
persons threatened and about to be i'm
ported by the defendants. They are
not alleged TO be conyicts, nor are they
alleged to be paupers, idiots, insane oi
diseased persons. They are said to b'
armed and to belong to the low
and lawless type Of humanity. n,
statute Of the state condemns the comm!
of such men hither.
1T will be time enough to decid
whether the state has the power u
prohibit them coming when a case, baSe'
on such a statute, is brought TO the at
tention of the court 1t is enough t,
say that under the ith amendment tC
the constitution they have the right T.
import them and the railroad the right
10 transport them.
Il can not avoid the conclusion, tia
a construction Of the interstate com
merce law and clause of the 1ith amend
ment 20 the constitution Of the Unite,
States are both involved -necessaril
so, and would be involved even If thi
bill were based on statute Of this stat
covering the class Of persons designate
in the bill and that a correct determine
tion Of the case makes It necessary {
coustrue those provisions Of the consti
tuition Of the United States and that th
construction placed upon them mu,
necessarily settle the contr0versary
This conclusion determines the fate o
. 81. s.,,ft1v IL - s,s4..r. r.,1.N