The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-25

beon said. whenever the Stafe of Ala basna says, that 1t can both propose and decide. that the railroau companies which have over 5O,ooo.ooO invested n court of competent Jurisdiction for the protection of their own property. and tha vindication of their own rights, when they say that, 1 say to you Ala bama suffers from that blow more than any railroad corporation within It's borders.
 The question of who shall make or lose a dime on a barrel of four, or . half mill on a pound of coffeb, or nickel on something else. Is not in it. self vital As State we can stand that whether it goes one way or the other. but tell you what we cannot stand. we cannot stand injustice in our laws.
 We cannot stand the denial of equal
 We cannot stand the overthrow of the Constitution of our State and our nation.
 That no State can stand. and when ever system of laws Is proposed hav- ing that purpose or having that effect, 1t is worse than unconstitutional. 1t Is unjust and unfair and unholy. It Is something that no man can stand for. and no other can defend. And say to you, that the purpose to deny these people the equal protection of the laws is written in every bill when 1t says that the penalties can be collected and enforced. notwfthstand- ing their orderly suspension by . court of justice having Jurisdiction even though that could be q state court. That is in there-it is in them all. Millions upon millions of dollars of penalties day, billions upon billions of dollars of penalties year. and if you take all the railroads and carry 1t out for ten years, 1t would take all the property in all the world to pay the fines imposed under this system. The exact controversy in this case involves about a half million of dol- lars annually, to the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. Distributed among all the people of Alabama equally 1t would amount to- 2s cents per capita To the people, even if 1t reached them, (and who believes 1t willO it would be a mere bagatelle. To the railroad company 1t spells the difference be- tween profit and loss.
 The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Cotting against the Kansas City stock yards, 183 U. S. p. 70. speaking through Justice Brew CT. used this language:
 "Do the laws secure to an individual an equal protection when he is allowed to come into court and make his claim. or defense subject to the conditions that upon a failure to make good that claim or defense the penalty for such failure either appropriates all his prop erty. or subjects him to extravagant and unreasonable loss? Let us make some illustrations to suggest the scope of this thought.
 Suppose a law were passed that if any laboring man should bring or de- fend an action and fail in his claim or 1zRA At& l.. ~r L.. .& l. should in the one instance forfeit to the defendant half of the amount of his claim, and in the other be punished by a fine equal to half of the recovery against him. and that such law by it's terms applied only to laborfng men, would there be the slightest hesitation in holding that the laborer was denied the equal protection of the laws? The mere fact that the courts are open to hear his claim or defense is not sufi- cient if upon him and upon him alone, there is visited a substantial penalty for a failure to make good his entire claim or defense. Take another illus tration: Suppose statute that every corporation failing to establish it's en- tire claim, or make good it's entire de- fense, should as penalty therefor for felt it's corporate franchise. and that no penalty of any kind except the mat ter of costs was attached to like fail- ures of other litigants, could 1t be said that the corporation received the equal protection of the laws? Take still an- other illustrations: Suppose a law which. while opening the doors of the courts to all litigants, provided that failure of any plaintiff or defendant to make good his entire claim or entire defense, should subject him to @ for feiture of all his property. or to some other great penalty; then. even if, as | an ako Ice faA o1i be said that there was equal protection of the laws. would not such c burden upon all be adjudged denial of due process of law? s's It is doubt less true that the State may impose penalties such as will tend to compel obedience to its mandates by all, indi- viduals or corporations, and if extreme and cumulative penalties are imposed only after there has been a final deter imitation of the validity of the statute. the question would be very different from that here presented. But, when the Legislature. in an effort to prevent any inquiry of the validity of a partic- ular statute. so burdens any challenge thereof in the courts. that the party af- fected is necessarily constrained to submit rather than take the chances of the penalties imposed, then 1t becomes a serious question whether the party Is not deprived of the equal protection of | the laws" Fellow citizens. I don't know what this Legislature is going to do. I am not as confident in my predictions as ! some of my friends. but want to say
 that this meeting and this protest and
 this opportunity of saying what we think about It is not lost. There is
 nothing lost when 1t is known that the | serious. sober-minded men of this State
 resent injustice even though it is done | Tna nA AA Gn. | of the State. When it is known that | there are men who stand for right and
 righteous principles. I say to you. that
 day is good one In the State of Ala
 bama. I congratulate you upon this l meeting. and I say to you in all sheer
 ity and seriousness, your presence here
 is not lost.