The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-21

munity from judicial authority eXertcd for
the protection OF the constitutional righjs
of others against bis Illegal action llo
can not DO invested By his State with any
direction or judgment tc violate the con-
stituton OF the United states
The cOuri also says that L can not ac-
cent The suggestion that the bill can be
maintained as against the health officer
alone on the theory hat his conduct iS m
violation OF in excess Of q valid law ot ne
state as The remedy for tliut would Ne
with lhe State auiborites and 40 refusal
10 fulili their duty 10 that regard VS. -
up aud that /, Is difficult 10 see how on
this record there could be u controversy
between the State OF Lunisiuu1 and The in
dividual defendants without Involving a
controversy between the States. Hut tho
important question presented in this ease
III the state of Louisiana la It's sOyeI-
egn capacity can sue at all In respect OF
the matters set out in the bill~-is,
whether the regulations being enforced by
the health officer are In violation OF the
constitution OF the United States. The
opinion OF the court Will be construed as
meaning that even II Louisiana be ell
titled. In her sovereign capacity, 10 COM
plain OF those regulations as Tepugn snt
10 the constitution Of the United States,
II could not proceed IN this court against
the defendant health officer, and that It's
only remedy is 70 appeal 10 the authorities
of Texas. that is to the governor Of that
State. who has power TO control his CO.
defendant, tho health officer, and who has
approved the regulations in question. !
am not aware of any decision supporting
this view. II the regulations IN question
arc in violation OF the constitution OK raH
United States, the defendant health off,
Ger, ! submit may without any previous
appeal to the governor OF Texas, be re-
r.. ID oh
the suit OF individuals inlurioasly affected
by their being enforced, or NJ the suit OF
Louisiana In IFS corporate capacity, pro-
yided that state could sue at all in re-
spect Of such matters,
Although unable to assent - The grounds
upon which the court rests It's opinion,
{ concur IN the judgment diminishing the
silt solely upon the ground thar the state
OF Louisiana In rs sovereign or corpo.aie
capacity can not SIZE on account OF the
matters ret out in the bill
Mr. Justice Brown eoncurring 81 ih'
result
am not prepared 70 say that Il tbs
State of Texas had placed an embarge
upon the entire commerce between Louis
lana and Texas. the State Of Lo4is an
would not he sufficiently ropr ssnta IS,
OF The great body OF her citizens 70 main
tain this bill.
/ 10 ylsw OF the solieltude which fro1
time nnmemorial States have mlnifesle,
! for the interest OF their own citizens; o
/ the fac, that wars are frequently ~aEes
/ by States IN vind-ation of individual
rights, Of which the last war with Eng.
4 land. the opium war OF 1870 between Ores
Britain and China and the war which 4
now beiug carried on Ia Sonih Afriea be-
tween Great Britain and the rrapsyaa
Republic, arc all notable examplcs; @
the further fact fhat treaties are entere,
| into for the profession Of individual
rights Thai international tribunals Az
constantly being established ios The sci