The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-22
JUDGE JONES
 HARGESGRANDJURY
tcoatlnued from rsge one.l

(Continued from Page one.)
 garded as an interloper, and the offi- Gers 1t provides for the execution of its laws as trespassers against the State, the court has no argument 10 make The only reasoning with them, will be the application of the power the law gives for its enforcement, of they resist it.
 But there are thousands and thous- ands of Alabamians. who revere the in- stitutions of the fathers, who wish to do right when convinced what Is right. and who do not wish to deny to anyone, if they know it. that which Is his. To them the presentation of ar gument and reason can only be pro- ductive of good.
 with hope that the word in season may disabuse their minds of many false ideas now honestly entertained by them, and bring them to the outspok- en support of the constituted authorl- ties, the court reviews some of the reckless grounds of complaints which have been used to provoke excitement and resistance to the process of the court
 Nc Question of Jurisdiction.
 What is there of substance in all this chatter and clamor that the UnitA ed States Court has no right to enter tain these cases, and has done the cit izens of the state a wrong in so doing? The cases fall within the very letter of the Constitution of the United States They are eases in equity" and controversies between citizens of the different States" and besides, insolve also 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 re- peatediy affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in numer- ous decisions. No man who will take the trouble to read the Constitution will doubt the Jurisdiction for an in- stant.
 Some have seriously told the people, because the cases involve a rate law, that their decision concerns purely local affairs, and are, therefore, who'll ly without the operation of the Copsti- tltion, and that the court in entertain ing these cases meddles with that which concerns it not. Courts do not select the cases they try. and can turn no man from the portals of justice whom the law pemits to enter them.
 "Is this local matter? Is 1t To- gal matter under the Constitution and laws of the United States whether a citizen or person be deprived of prop srty without due process of law, or shut out. by threats and intimidation pr ruin to his business. from the court which the supreme law of the land opens to him, to compel him to abandon the protection of writs it affords him? Does not the supreme law of the land give the citizen of the United States, as such, quite apart from his rights as the citizen of the State. the un- doubted right to test such matters in the court of the United States? Who can say nay? Does not the right to do so concern the citizens of each of the States and affect the welfare of mill lions and millions of American free men? Is it not plainly a case where the injury of one is the concern of all?
 States Rights Not Involved.
 "Are States rights violated when a Federal Court hears a case the Con- stitution compels 1t to hear? The merest child knows that what he has granted and bargained away no long, CT belongs to him. The American peo- ple&or the people of the States, who framed the Constitution of the States and freely adopted 1t. certainly surren- dered all the powers specified therein. They did so to escape the disorgani- Eation and turmoil which resulted from the weak Government under the Ar ticles of Confederation. The Consti- tuition and laws of the United states enacted in pursuance thereof. operate not only on the States but on the ipeo-s pie in all the states, because the States surrendered all the powers mentioned In the Constitution to the General Gov ernment.
 Wherein, then, is there shred of reason or argument upon which to hang the contention, which now threat ems the peace Of this State, that the ex- ercise of judicial power in this class of cases invades any of the rights of the State, after the State, for the sake of the common good, has solemnly ab- dicated its original power over such matters and transferred 1t to the Gen. eral Government? This much, at least, passed beyond disputation long before the unhappy days of the Civil War. It was fully explained and finally decided by Chief Justice John Marshall, the greatest. Jurist who ever spoke the English tongue, and reaf- frmed by his illustrious successor, Chief Justice Fancy.
 Let me read you some words of the latter, when a similar claim of power was made in behalf of the State to nu1lify the erders eE the Federal court, in e case where the Federal court was enforcing the constitutional right o citizen of the South, in the face of an unframed public sentiment, in the ex- ecutive of the fugitive slave law.
 " Nor is there anything in this su- premacy of the General Government, or the Jurisdiction of its judicial tribu- nals, to awaken the Jealousy or of fend the natural and just pride of State sovereignty. Neither this Gov ernment nor the power of which we are speaking, were forced upon the States. The Constitution of the United States, with all the powers conferred by 1t on the General Government, and surrendered by the States, was the voluntary act of the people of the sew