The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-08-10


 the flag and the execution of the laws of the United States as well as the preservation of order at home, against the officers of this court, if they at tempt to execute the process which it is
 the sworn duty of this court, under the constitution and laws of the United States to issue in cases of this kind. The court must believe, whatever may ap- pear ir. the press to the contrary, that no such thought has entered the mind of one charged with responsibility No man need be urged to pause and think what the execution of such q threat would mean The simplest child knows what 1t would portend. l think l know enough of the people of Alabama to af- firm that they would not tolerate the idea, or give it any support. If that day should ever come, and God forbid that it should. the grossest treason that the courts of the United States could com
 init against the liberties of the people of Alabama, as well as the citizens of our common country, would be to quail from the issue and abdicate it's plain, sworn and undoubted duty In the ad- ministration of the law in cases properly brought before 1t. The court would have exhausted all the power thS law gives for the execution of its prot<ss if you had insisted on the protection ot{ts wrtts.
 QDutI luc circumstances. Ilbl \IB It. mains but to grant the order th\t you ask, and to direct that these remarks be spread upon the minutes.
 Review of Case.
 The bills were hle9 on the 18th day pf March, and notice given respondents to appear on March 90. and show cause why a restraining order should not issue. On that day q restraining order o md oiUpn th irtV days to show cause against a prelim- mary injunction. At the appointed time the respondent appeared by five eminent counsel. No demurrer. plea, answer, or affidavit, of any kind was filed in denial of the sworn allega lions of the bills. Counsel for respond ents stated in open court, under these circumstances. that they did not re- sist the issue of the preliminary in functions as prayed, and that 1t was not proposed to appeal from the order granting them. Under such circum- stances, the court had no alternative but to issue preliminary injunctions against the enforcement of the statute as to passenger rates and the charges upon the one hundred and ten commod- ities. and the statute ipso facto, for felting the right to domestic business in Alabama, in consequence of bring ing q suit in the federal court to test the validity of these statutes. The court asked for argument against the propriety of any of these orders, and was answered by respondents counsel. that it was not necessary. since there was no resistance to the issue of the preliminary injunction.
 It Is proper to say now that In re- straining the enforcement of the freight and passenger rate and prosecutions for not conforming thereto, the court trod squarely in the footprints both of the supreme court of the United States and the supreme court of Alabama as sh own in:
 Smyth vs. Ames, 169 U. s. 406.
 Began vs. Trust Co.,, 154 U. s. 362.
 Davis x Farnum Mfg. Co. ys. Los An geles, 1S9 U. s. POT.
 Dobbins vs. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223.
 Prout vs. Starr, 1SS U. s. 537.
 .aayor of Columbt-s vs. Rodgers, 19 Ala. 37.
 l.. Ss N. R. R. Co. vs. Port of Mobile. S4 Ala. 115
 S. & N. R. R. Go. vs. City Council of Montgomery, S4 Ala 127.
 l.. X N. R. R. Go. vs. City of Bessemer, IS Southern Reporter, sos.
 Case of Confiscaton.
 The bills uncontradicted made a prima facie case of confscation. or de- privation of property without adequate return upon the value devoted to do- nestle commerce, and of irreparable in ury if the statute were enforced pen 1ente lite, while the rights of the public could be amply secured by bond 10 refund the excess rate, if the re- 1uction in rates were adjudged valid. Injunction on those terms saved the rights of all concerned.
 The statutes ipso facto eXpelling foreign corporations for bringing suits in the federal court to test the validity of the rates was declared unconStitu- tional, because it violated section 240 of the state constitution, and also sec tion 90 against impairment of con tracts, and also of those provisions of the constitution of the United States which prevent the denial by the state of equal protection of the law, the i'm pairing of the obligation of contracts and deprivation of property without due process. The only question re- as to tE>t statute was, whether had any adequate remedy at law and whether. if it's execution were not enjoined, irreparable damage would not result to the public and the alike. A brief cofsidera- ton of it's effects could leave no doubt of the pathway of the court.
 Blots Out Road.
 If this statute were enforced, then per sons and goods at one point seeking an- other point in this state must go beyond its limits and then return to the de- sired destination. For all practical pur- poses of domestic commerce along com plainants lines, the statute blots out it's road almost as completely if the rails were torn up and the roadbed disman- tied Coal, iron and limestone, whose close proximity to our furnaces has given such wondrous impulses to our industries, would be put out of our reach. and the advantages of nature turned to naught by the operation of the statute. The local distributing centers and the Alabama communities dependent upon them would both be shut out of their home market. Under the strain of such conditions the merchant would be bankrupted, and every home would feel the pressure of the increased cost of the necessares of life. Mines. manufactures. furnaces and shops dependent upon the use of tho rall- roads would be closed and thousands ot workinen in them thrown into enforced idleness. Kindred and friends in one ln- cality could not visit the sick or attend the dying in another locality, without first going to the state line and thence re- turn to the place where duty or affection called them. All enjoyment of inter- course by the people in one part of our state with the people at other points in Alabama along the lines of the roads, whether for recreation. necessity, business or industry, would either be absolutely destroyed or so hampered by the ob stacles which this statute D Is upon the enjoyment of their liberties In this respect as to render them almost valueless. Aside from the dire consequences to the public,