The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-10-06
he Voice of the People.
sfatc aoynrc,sntx.

/ ne OlCe o
State Sovereignty.
llditor OF .rlio Tln,ns-D lspnttll:
sNiir,--Tlio more thoroughly the mat
tata is examined the palmer ~ appears
tllat the Virginia pnsseng er rnt To case
Involves the question Of State sovcr-
eighty. and X the contention OF the
roads ls sustained local government
VII! nave been destroyed by the Tcd-
cr y. .lpdiciary. Neltller In The reports
tic demurrer flied ny the Corporation
commission does 1t appear tfnt vir-
Elnla has raised the ono vital question
/ upon Which she can Scuntidentiy rely for
vlc ;tt IL i. this: IL the Judgment Of
due process OF lnw7 This Ia the crtx
OF the contention. Virginia scctns to
nave acted upon the assumption thlt
ina, ~ q Judgment up9n tho matter must
Ineht neither denies nor abridges tlie
TIE OF the States to deprive any per-
son o. life, liberty or property. II
simply prescribes the method BY which
the States must not when they de-
prlYc any person OF any OF the three.
due process OF law.
Ihls amendment places lilo, liberty
and property In tho same category and
Affords each the Same protection. rho
state may seize tho person N, deprive him
q ms liberty. eyenftake his lie. or u
may contlscGto bis property; but the
process OF law. whether the person
Is allowed to retain HIS life, ADcrty or
property Is primarily matter OF Leg
lslatiye discretion. The enactment
must be equal and uniform ana apply
lilnpartially to all under ike condi-
tions. The person whose right to lie.
liberty or property Is In question
must be given his day In court ana
Lhere receive impartial treatment.
This constitutes due process OF law.
The courts have held that tho right
OF review By an appellate court in capt.
talg cases Is not g necessary clement OF
due process OF Jaw. but 1t is wholly
within the discretion OF each State to
refuse It or grant 1t on terms-s Cyc..
CLING sl Andrews We. 6wartz. 156 u. s..
.12. r., then. the State may take the
| lie OF the person when ono OF It's In
ferior courts has decided tho case and
lSyet meet the requirement. OF due pro-
cess Of jaw. with how much more rea-
son may It take his property by the
same PROCESS without Infringing this
| amendment.
II should be observed hero IN the
case above cited that the Judgment OF
tho state court on the merits OF tho
case was final! II, then, this be true
Of the persons life and liberty. Is 1t
not equally true OF his property?
Virginia. through her commission.
gave the roads their day In court. and
In addition voucfsafed to them. what
tho person cannot claim when his life
Is IN jeopardy. an appeal, US matter
OF right. to the Supreme Court OF Ap-
filling every requirement OF due pro-
licess of law.
u is sconceded that the State has a
right to regulate rates. It has been
a legislative discretion for hundreds
English Law. The Fourteenth Amend
ment was not intended to limit this
right Neither the author-nor adopt
ers OF 1t had any such idea. It was
added to the Constitution to protect
the negroes in their civil and political
rights as citizens.
In the Granger cases the Supreme
Court OF the United States held, where
property has been clothed with a pub
| lie interest the Legislature may iix a
limit to that which shall In law be
binds the court as we'll as the people.
II 1t has been improperly fixed. the
Legislature. not the courts, must he
appealed to for the chnnge,"--Petk vs..
Chicago. ETC., II. Co, 81 u. S.. 30. The
later doctrine that rates must be the
I
scrihed at less than cost are ontlsca-
tory. and taking property without due
process Of law, Is simply an example OF
court-made law. "a plain and palpable
lnlstnterpretation OF tn Constitution.
having the effect. ns most uBurpations
do,8of removing power from the hands
OF the many and svesting It in tho
branch OF the government farthest re-
moved from the people. 1t Is only an
| snfh M "a n IA 4, on m
save the foolish people from the cons
| sequences OF their own folly.
\ It may be observed that IT Is a we'll
Isettled doctrine that courts have
nothing to do with the policy OF the
4 law. Their functlonis to interpret cor-
rectly and enforce impartially all law.
whether wise or foolish, unless 1t
But conceding. hypothetically. that
rates must yield at least cost In order
l that tho regulation may conform to
the requirements OF due process OF
law, they at once become subjects OF
| Judicial inquiry. 1t has already beer
! shown In the case OF capital punish-
/ ment that the judgment OF the inferior
court OF the State was all that was
necessary to meet The requirement OF
i the Federal Constitution. and as life,
/ liberty and property stand on equal
ground. Is 1t not. conclusive that the
i Judgment OF the State court Is final as
4 to property also?
II the States have any sovereign pow
ers. their Supreme Courts necessarily
POSSESS the power@of final Judgment
4 upon all questions arising under these
4 powers, and. therefore, in matters OF
Judgment of questions purely intrA-
state the Supreme Courts or the States
occupy the same relation to the SUI
prelne Court Of the United States that
4 the court OF one power bears to that
of another equally INDEPENDENT. Tn
4 other words, each court. State or Fed
eral, is Ii supreme within Its sphere
d There can be no doubt that this was
4 the View entertained by the trainers
4 of the Federal Constitution, and8Sit
4 should be respected by all, unless they
I are prepared to deny the efficacy OF
II poycrnment nv written constitutions.