New-York tribune., 1907-08-26
STATE RIGHTS AND THE COURTS.

Judge Thomas c. Jones, of tie federal dis
trict court for the Middle District of Alabama,
has done much by his recent opinions and de-
cisions in the Alabama railroad rate cases TO
dispel til foolish idea that the federal courts
abdcated any of their powers as result OF the
ont of court compromises arrived at in Ala
bana. North Carolina and Virginia by the state
authorities and the Southern Railroad Judge
Jones recently modified an injunction which he
had granted 10 the Southern RallrOad-ihu
modified it at the railroads public request. But he
had granted similar injunctiOns to other railroads
affected by the state rate laws and these in
functions still stand and will be enforced by the
court, if it has to push to the extreme limit
the powers vested in It for the due execution of
its writs by the federal statutes and the federal
Constitution. In n charge to the federal grand
jury in Montgomery on Wednesday Judge Jones
instructed the jurors 10 be on the watch for
offenders trying to nullify the courts rate law
iniunctions and to indict anybody concerned IN
resistance TO the process of the court or efforts
ito obstruct impede the due administration
"of justice in these cases. As the federal stat
utes make such obstruction punishable by fine
and Imprisonment. the court will undoubtedly be
able to secure respect for its injunctions
On another much beclouded issue Judge
Joness charge throws some helpful light. lie
has been accused by the state authorities III
Alabama of trying to exalt federal rights at the
expense of state rights and Of interfering IN
matters of local administration. 1t has been
sought to create prejudice against the federal
court on the ground that it was abridging state
sovereignty. But, Judge Jones shows, this
suggestion is wholly sophistical. He is not in
vadfng the jurisdiction of the state courts. but
exercising a jurisdiction plainly intended TO be
exercised by federal tribunals Among other
things be said:
What is there of substance fl all this clatter
and clamor that the United States court has no
right to entertain these cases and has done the
citizens of the state wrong IN so doing: me
fall within the very letter OF the ConStltu-
ton of the United States. They are eases IN
equity and controversies between citizens of
the different states" and. besides. involve the
application Of the Constitution and laws. The
exercise OF jurisdiction by the federal court in
this class of cases has always been upheld and
repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of the
United States in numerous decisions. No man
who will take the trouble 10 read the COnstitu-
ton will doubt the jurisdiction for an instant.
Some have seriously told the people. because
the cases involve a rate law, that their decision
concerns purely local affairs, and are therefore
wholly without the operation of the Constitu-
tiOn. and that the court in entertaining these
cases NEEDLES with that which concerns IL not
Courts do not select the cases they try and can
turn no man from the portals OF justice whom
the law permits TO enter them. Is this local
matter? Is 1t q local matter under the Consti-
tuition and laws OF the United states whether IL
citizen or person be deprived of property with
out due process Of law, shut out, by threats
and intimidation ruin TO his business, from
the court which the supreme law OF the land
opens to him, TO compel him to abandon the pro
lection OF writs it affords him? Does not the
supreme law Of the land give the citizen OF the
United States, such. quite apart from his
rights as the citizen Of the state, the undoubted
right TO test such matters In the court of the
United States? Who can say nay?
These statements ought TO make 1t clear that
no question OF state rights versus federal
rights is involved in the rate controversies in
Alabama and North Carolina. The issue has
been one rather Of comfy between the state and
federal courts and of choice in the methods 10
be followed in carrying those controversies into
tho United States Supreme Court. No one con
tends that an appeal does not lie to the Supreme
Court and at most the states can only complain
that litgants have chosen TO resort in the first
instance 10 federal rather than to state tribunals
But both have jurisdiction. and neither can turn
aside plaintiff who pleads that his property Is
being taken away from him in violation Of the
guarantees of the federal Constitution. Much
loose talk about clash between state and fed
eral authority would haze been avoided IL there
had been clearer understanding of the abso-
lutte legitimacy of the appeal by the railroads TO
the protection Of the federal court.