The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-07-30
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED

attracted SO much attention out
side of the state, as we'll as with
in1Ier borders, that the matter
IS Ding discussed by most Of the
lHGng papers Of the country.
Where are SO many of these ar
ticles that we have not space to
publish near all of them, though
we would like to do so, in order
that Our readers might know the
views Of the leading journals of
the country on thi, very import
ant question.
In this issue we publish edi-
tOrials from three Of the leading
papers Of the Countrywide New
York Times, The Journal of
Commerce Of New York, and
The Washington Post.
1t will be seen that in these ar
tiCles two points are emphasized
which have been made in The
Messenger heretofore.
One is that in the line Of cases
relAI on for the states cOnten-
tidm. the facts on which those
decisions were based, were di-
rectly the reverse o. those in
- suits now pending in this
state and which form the ground
Of the present controversy. All
the cases cited has authority fOr
the position Of the state officials
declare that the federal court
cannot interfere by injunction
with suits "pending in the state
COURTS; whereas, in the cases
now under discussion and which
are causing such a stir, there was
no case pending III a state court
when these suits were brought in
the federal court. Judge Pritch-
ards court first acquired juris-
diCtiOn Of the matter III contrO-
versy. The proceedings were
not started in his court to ham
per or IN any way to Interfere
with any suits then pending in
any state court, for there were
then no suits u legal proceedings
in those courts involving the
questions raised in the actions
brought in his court The be
giving Of legal process on the
,mNion involved WIS the bring
No of suits in his court by par
- who had the right under the
laws Of this state and OF the
federal government to seek the
relief sought i'll his court if they
preferred it to the state courts.
His court had as full jurisdiction
OF the matter in dispute as had
any state court. He acquired
jurisdiction in those particular
cases by reason Of the fact that
the suits were instituted IN his
court. Subsequent to his thus
acquiring jurisdiction owe the
subject matter Of the suits and
over the parties thereto, proceed
ip"s hostile and antagonistic to
DISQUALIFICATION were brought III
tate courts for the purpose
Afeating the ends of justice
sought to be administered in his
court Of competent and concur
rent jurisdiction with that Of the
court which has ATTEMPTED to
hamper and thWart tie proceed
ings Of the court first taking cog
nizance Of the matter.
The second matter to which we
refer is III regard to the enforce
ment Of the law claimed to be TN
constitutional, before that ques-
ton has been finally decided. The
railroads proposition is decided
ly fairer to the patrons Of the
roads than is that Of the state 10
the railroads. They give every
man who buys a ticker a receipt
for the excess which will secure
tle refunding to him of that eH-
c4A>f if the ase finally goes
against the roads, and sufficient
bonds have been given to secure
the performance # that contract
on the part Of the railroads. On
the other hand, the Governor
GTxn's contention prevails and
theSoads are forced from now on
to sell tickets at reduced rates