New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-07-20

NORTH CAROLINA AND THE COURTS.
Tie clash between the state and federal
courts in North Carolina arises from litigation
exactly parallel TO the gas rate litigation IN
this state. New York passed II law lowering the
price of gas and the enforcement OF The law
was stayed by a federal Judge. New York
might have grown indignant and denounced
this action Of the federal court as unW2r-
ranted Interference. II It had done 80 We should
have been in the position which North Carolina
is in. for Governor Glenn IS declaring that to
take The enforcement Of the states laws out
of the hands Of the state officers IS Il high
handed proceeding" and he is reported 20 be
encouraging the state Judiciary 10 resist It.
Tie North Carolina cases spring from law
reducing passenger fares in that state 10 a
maximum of "a cents mile. Penalties are
fixed for selling tickets at moro than that rate
Tho railroads contend that tho law Is conilsca-
tory ana therefore unconstitutional. ne are the
penalties. and are nghting tho law in tho federal
court. Meanwhile the state officials Jealous
about enforcing #. Having put n law which
thev believe to bo popular on the statute books.
they DO not wish to be compelled 10 whit
year to enjoy the public appreciation expected
10 spring from its enforcement They assert
that the state courts are the proper place TO test
state laws. Some irritation OF this sort has
marked tho appeals to federal courts against
tho two-cent fare IN other states. There was
Iittle clash in Missouri and another In Mime
sofa but after sOme deuuncatton Of the fed
ernl courts the state officers bowed to tho In
cvitablc Alabama's Governor has expressed
resentment at Interference by the federal judi
cinry but nowhere else has such defiant at
ttude been shown by state authorities as in
North Carolina. Perhaps 1t Is natural that
this sentiment should DO stronger In the South
ern states than elsewhere, on account Of the
old states rights feeling and because the fed
eral Judges IN the South are not generally %
the dominant political party.
North Carolina las nothing 10 gain by fore
Ing the Issue, for there is better established
principle than that federal courts have juris-
diction in cnses affecting the constitutional
rights OF citizens Of the United States II is
alleged that tie NOrh Carolina rate statute
violates the guarantee Of the federal COnsttu-
ton that property shall not ho taken without
due process OF law. The determination OF this
point properly belongs 20 the United StAtes
! courts. For state TO hold otherwise ia In
tolerable 1t means that each state shall d.
termine for itself what is the intent Of the fed
eral Constitution. Each state would have it's
own Interpretation, and what would be constitu-
nonal In one stnte would be unconstitutional IN
another In tho North Carolina case Judge
Pritchard has stayed the enforcement OF tho
railroad rate law, as Judge LAcOmbe did that
OF the gas rata law here until the coustttu-
tionality OF tho law under the federal Consti-
tuition shall be determined The North Carolina
courts have retorted by clapping some ticket
agents into the chain gang for violating that
| law.
The similar clash IN several states is a now
manifestation Of the common Impotence with
courts It was reflected in several features
Of the Oklahoma constitution in which the
powers Of judges were considerably restricted
| and In which provision was inserted specifi-
cnlly fOrbidd1ng corporations TO appeal TO the
federal courts against stnte laws as the South
ern Railway has done in North Carolina Con
StitutiOnal methods are too slow for the hurried
utopians of the present day. Who would wait
and see his pat scheme fought all the way up
to the Supreme Court of the United States? Is
the appeal Of corporations TO the federal courts
against alleged oppressive state laws 10 furnish
n new issue TO the radicals like the anti-ln-
junction issue OF few years ago? The test
ing of the laws for regulating property
affected with a public interest is going to he
an important part of the federal iudiciarys
work and It IA going TO be an invidious duty It
means delay md perhaps defeat Of many a pet
project II probably means much CRITICISM of
federal Judges, Of which this North Carolina
denuncation for presuming 10 Interfere with
state laws is only foretayte. Probably radical