The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-07-26

u0dQS OF protecting luelT OpcT
rights and denied the benefits of the
writ of habeas corpus which is intend
ed for the preservation Of the liberty
Of every citizen. It will be a sad DAY
for the people of North Carolina when
its citizens are prohibited by the acts
of tee legislature from asserting any
right guaranteed to them by the con-
stitution Of the United States. Suits
of this character have been brought
different states OF the union and in
every instance the federal courts have
proceeded to determine the questions
involved without interference, hind
rance or delay by the legislative Or ju-
diciad authorities OF such states.
The equal protection of the law -
guaranteed to every citizen of the
United States and / shall employ ill
means within the power Of the court
to secure to all persons who may in
woke the Jurisdiction OF this court ouch
rights to the fullest extent OF the law.
Much has been said in regard 10 the
power of a court OF equity TO cnjoin
the prosecution of a criminal case Il
the case of Dobbins VS. Los Angeles,
1875, T.. s., 241, Mr.. Justice DaS, in
discussing this phase of the question
said
1T is we'll settled that where prop
erty rights will be des+roy-t unlawful
interference by crimin:l proceedings,
under a void law, OF ordinance, may
be reached and controlled by a decree
ma Mfg CoCl2taF w !.Os A;!g,'e5, 1S9
OF a court OF equity" Davis and For
e. S. POI and cas3s tlie"e ci5vG.'
Ia his insta ! g the federal custt has
not been the aggreS5Or, bit DIS simply
adopted the regular practice Az Pro
cedura which has Eee1 approved b.
the upreme court Of tic United States
in the cases of a like nanlra ard while
the court is not inclined TO do any
thing that wifi produce al unseeinly
conflict, nevertheless, it is encumhent
upon it 10, prc5ect the rights Of de
parties to this controversy n tae
dignity and authority Of this court
and this cannot be accomplished will
out preserving to the fullest extent the
Jurisdiction OF the court in deter1lln~
ing the question which has been sub
mitted for consideration. IF i'll pur-
SuIlS Tie usual dl4o Z USLACA pi"\
tfce and procedure. III such cases witt.
the sole view Of maintaining the juris-
dictiOn of this court at any stage Of
the proceeding, conflict must come and
: trust it may nOGG Shall not eyade the
responsibility which ia imposed upon
nae as the presiding officer OF this
court. Much has been said about the
sovereignty of the Stdre. That 1ueS-
ton does not arise III THIS controversy
This court ahyinS assumed jurisdiction
of the subject mattel" iIn%Ofyed In the
original suit, Wherein the railroad
companies ere compliments, and the
railroad commissioners Rd others &re
defendants the real Question is as TO.
whether this court shall lie denied full
and complete Jurisdiction - the sub
iect matter as issue in Sat Suit. +
the contention OF counsel representing
the state be true. then this cpIrt "an
be deprived of it's jurisdfct1ou ~ the
multiplication of criminal prosecutions
and thus by indiscretioen the eCgn-
plainant. it's agents and employees to
such an extent as to finally place ii III
a position where it will 90 deprived OF
a larger amount than that when is
involved in the original controversy,
and, thus by indirectiOm l!le CJ1t-
plainant WIFI be deried a tight WI Tch
is guaranteed to it by the constitution
Of the United States. This proposition
is inconsistent with the well establish
ed rules of judicial procedure and does
not commend itself to this or any
court sitting as a court oEf equity 1t
excludes the idea of comfy between
Of concurrent jurisdiction
Suppose complainant had. instituted
its suit IN the state court instead of
applying to this court ana that court
had granted an injunctiCT in pur=u-
ance of the laws of the state, couRG it
be seriously commended that the state
court after having taken jurisdiction
Of the questions involved i'm the civil
action Thus instituted, would permit
the complainant to be subjected %
criminal prosecutions and suits for
the recovery of the enormous penalties
enumerated in the statute of the state.
during the tendency Of tl1eractii1n. and
before there could be an aScertasHroen-
as to the rights Of the ~auTties to the
original suit? The state court unGnT
such circumstances. would u~ndJubted-
ly preserve the rights 81 the. parties
until the final hearing, and any other
course would be without precedent i'll
the judicial history Of t&e state.
Notwithstanding this. we are con-
fronted with an attempt On the part
of those representing che stste to DO
that. which, if successful, would rem
der this court powerless to grant the
same relief that would be granted as
a matter of course in another court Of
concurrent jurisdictio2- .
The law provides that in all cases
where the federal courts have concur
rent jurisdiction with the state courts
that such courts shall have power and
authority to ~adjuGfcate any question
that may come before such tribunals
and protect the rights CT litigant5 to
the same extent as that of the state
courts.
TIL c,;%~ o,+ ,f uhirp rh;r 11,Gro