The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-10

ITO concede the claim which some l now so recklessly vrge. that the
 Federal Court can have no concern with | any local matter whatever. however
 deeply it may touch the right of the
 citizens of the United States, under
 the Constitution. would be an aban- 1 doment of the whole scheme of the | Constitution of the United States. and
 a reversal of the current of thought l of the people of this country for more
 than hundred years of national life. | Tt would add a new amendment to
 the Fundamental law, that wherever
 the enforcement of a right given by the | Constitution of the United States | touches local pride or interests. the 1 inferior court of the United States at
 least shall have no right to pass on 1t, l and be utterly plotted out as tc such the citizens of any State under the | Constitution without the protection of 1 the inferior tribunals of the United | States in any event. and confine him to 1 the courts of the States
 No enlightened State has ever | dreamed of shutting the doors of its | courts to any person within the pro- | lection of the law, and surely on State.
 which in matters of this sort exercises all It's power in subordination to the
 limitations of the Constitution of the | United States, can rightfully say that
 a citizen of another State shall not
 enter the court which the forefathers 1 provided for him, if he chooses to re- sort to them. or inflict pains and penal ties upon him because he does so. Surely no man will assert thet the courts of the State are the only
 tribunals fit to be trusted to deal with | the right of citizens of differents
 States, or to enforce them where the Constitution of the United States Is in- Ivh n
 realizes the attachment of the people of the United States to the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the Union as to all matters committed to it, will seriously dream of expecting
 the American people to submit to the
 new doctrine now for the first time declared, since the abolishment of the
 Articles of Confederation put B. final
 end to such contentious. that while
 under the Constitution and laws of the United States citizen of the State
 may sue a citizen of another in the
 Federal courts. yet that when that
 citizen of another State becomes fiji.
 voived in a controversy with citizen
 Of the State. he shall be confined in the
 assertion of his right to the State l courts only.
 Upheld By Supreme Court. Such doctrine has been time and
 again repudiated by the Supreme Court
 of the United States. It has repeat edly held that whenever a citizen of a State may go into the court of State | to defend his property against illegal
 acts of It's officers. a citizen of an- other State may invoke the jurisdic- | tion of the Federal Court in maintain | Ing like defense. The State cannot | tie up the citizens of another State
 having property within its territory,
 invaded by unauthorized acts of its of- | firprG GtrtA In it's own court. Given a case where suits can be maintained in the courts Of State to protect property rights, citizen of another State can invoke | the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court 1, No court whose officers are sworn
 to obey the Constitution of the United States can declare that any amendment Is unwise or should not have been adopted. It suffices for the court that the amendment is the supreme law | of the land. The declaration that no 1 State shall deprive any person of life 1 liberty or property without due pro- cess of law, nor deny to any person within its Jurisdiction the equal pro- lection of the laws' was not born of ] turies before our late unhappy strug- gle.
 "It is but the specialization of great principle of liberty for which all English speaking people have struggled. and sets bounds of power of those who govern.
 In Alabama Constitution.
 Ever since Alabama has been a State. its Constitution has reafHrmed this great principle of Magma Charta. and has always embodied In its funda- mental law equivalent provisions. which are now found in Section IS. which declares that all courts shall 1,a claiming injury done him or his goods. lands or reputation. shall have a rem edy by due process of law. and that right and justice shall be administer ed without denial or delay
 Tt is, therefore. new and start ling doctrine to proclaim among free men, that when citizen brings be- fore any court in this country the set clement of a controversy for which that court was provided by the law of the land, that he thereby defies the au- thority of the State, and should be terrorized and penalized to prevent his securing the protection which the law of the land commands the court to af- ford him in the particular case.
 Some who reck little of the real we'll fare of the people, insist thae the bene- ficent principle that the court which first obtained Jurisdiction of a case should maintain 1t to the end and make all proper orders therein, and that no other court can rlghtfully interfere. should now be broken down, and that the courts of the State should be used, although Federal Court has first ob- tained jurisdiction, to undermine and nullify the remedies which that court may give for the protection of right.
 "Nothing But Anarchy"
 Such a contention leads to nothing but anarchy, and has been repeatedly condemned by that august tribunal which is the final arbiter of every right which can be asserted under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
 Courts may err. as all human insti- tutions do. If so, the law provides a remedy and that is by appeal or re- vision in the mode provided by law, l to the higher tribunals of the power which creates the courts. If in these cases this court has erred, the remedy was open by an appeal within thirty days of the Court of Appeals, and thence to the Supreme Court of the United States, or it may be, by writ or prohibition, from some higher judge
 to desist from adiudicating the right if this court was without power 10 entertain 1t.
 The power of courts is largely nor al and their decrees and orders in this enlightened country are acqui- esced in until reversed in the mode provided by law, because the law -abid- | ing. liberty loving American feels that
 without such obedience to the orders of the courts the stability of our in- !