The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-09-05
FEDERAL COURT DECISION
 WOULD SETTLE WHOLE CASE

State statutes. as we'll its equity pow CTS. pending the ascertainment of the facts upon which alone the court could determine whether the statutes were void dr not, and. therefore, whether they could be enforced at any time.
 Third. In that case, no injunction had been issued, as here, by a court of competent Jurisdiction. before any in- dictment was found. in which court the decision of the very matter sought to be raised by the indictment--the valid ttv Of the rate-was pending, in order to preserve it's own prior Jurisdiction. acquired by the initiation therein of the very proceedings the State law invited, and to prevent the transfer of the trial of the case by the indirect mode of a criminal prosecution into another court. which could no longer take ju- risdiction. since the matter was already pending in a court of coordinate ju- rjsdiction. .,ae .--s,
 Only Few People InvoIved.
 Fourth. That case did not involve. as does this. irreparable injury, both public and private, from the disturb ance of the operation of @ great inland highway of commerce. by constant and incessant arrests of its officers and op- eratives, whose duties pertain alike to the movement of domestic and inter- state business, and which would inev- itaoly infict grevious burdens and hin- derences upon great volume of inter- state commerce. and interfere with the prompt dispatch of the malls of the united States- The arrest of the toll Keeper. in the Fitts V. McGhee case, su- pra, did not interfere with either do- mestic or interstate commerce, or in- Jure the public. or impede the passage or persons or thing over the bridge In any way, or prevent the bridge com pany rom maintaining it as part of Q local highway, for the use of a com- paratively few intra-stats passengers
 Fifth. Nor Is that case authority for tne proposition, that where proceedings against officers specially charged with the duty of enforcing statute are auy thortzed by the state law, to enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional act. (which Fitts V. Mc0hee, expressly ad- mits is proper, and not to be a suit against the State). that officers who are not charged with any duty, can "butt It. so to speak. and try the case else- where, and thus prevent the court in which the suit is pending, from ef- Actively determining the question and nullifying it's judgment by transferring the trial elsewhere. If the original proceeding be not suit against the State. as Fitts V. McGhee admits it is not, and thereby the coure can arrest the States chosen and trusted agents in the enforcement of a statute. it stands to reason that the power which can ar rest the selected and chosen agent of the State to enforce a law. may stop other agents of less degree from doing that which the court can prevent the higher servant from doing.
 sixth. this case falls within the ex- caption Mir. Justice Harlan was care ful to make in Fitts V. McGhee, as to suits authorized by law. where ha says: But this is not intended in any way to infringe upon the principle which Justifies suits against indivfd- val defendants, who. under color of au- thority of unconstitutional legisiation es the State are guilty of personal tres passes and wrongs. nor to forbid suit . against officers in their official capacity. either to coerce or direct their official action by injunction or mandamu$ where such suits are authorized by law. and the acts to be done or omitted to he done is purely ministerial, in the performance or omission to perform which the plaintiff has a legal inter- est
 Ruling by Supreme Court.
 'The Supreme Court of the United States in the latter cases has adminis-