The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-07-26
NUDGE PRITCHARDiS DECISION.

railway IdOc NcA1NSS
waged in this state and which Is very
improperly and incorrectly being H"-
ignated by some editors and other per
SONS as a clash or conflict of jurisdlc-
ton between the federal and state
courts.
Another statement has
haan made which is that the federal
court. Circuit Judge Pritchard pfeSld-
ioo has interfered with the procedure
Of the state court.
Neither of these statements is 0 I
rect. as any one will see who pau6a'
for a moment to reject. Instead Oh
the federal court interfering with the
state courts III the performance Of It's
duties and the exercise OF It's pow
ers by the other, the case IS just re-
yersed. The state courts, under IN
structions from the governor, have
stepped in and attempted to nulllfy ii
decree of the federal court in a mater
in which the latter had full jurisdic-
ton. That the decree OF the federal
court was an interlOcutOry one and
from a court interior to the fede'al
supreme court made no Inference
1t was as binding on all parties con
cerned, of the same force and legal
ty and entitled to the same respect
until withdrawn by the court which
issued it or reversed by a higher court,
as would nave been a final Judgment
the court of last resort on an ap-
peal from the order Of the lower
court.
No one can deny, and no n has
attempted to deny, that the plaintiffs
had as equal legal right to go into the
federal circuit court with their petI-
ton for injunction in this proceen"
ing, or that the former court had
jurisdiction to entertain he petit
ton and to act il the premises. All
those who have raised a howl about
the railroads seeking the aid OF The
federal court in this matter have never
YET claimed that the federal court did
not have jurisdiction in the case
That is a proposition too plain to be
denied and the jingoists have not had
the effrontery to make the denial.
= We will take it that the right Of
the federal court to take cognizance Of
the case is admitted.
Then the next question is: What
right had the state courts to step in,
after the whole matter had been
brought into the federal court and the
question of the validity Of the act OF
the legislature, under the constitution
of the United States was III course O[
being determined in hat court, and
interfere within fact attempt TO nul-
lily the action already taken by tile
other court OF competent and concur
rent jurisdiction?
We take it that there is no differ
ence between the SO called conflict OF
jurisdiction i'll this matter between -he
federal circuit court in Asheville, pre-
sided over by Judge Pritchard, and the
state superior court OF Wake, presid-
ed over by Judge Long or the muuicI-
pal our of Asheville presided ver
by Judge Reynolds, than there woull
have been between the two last nam
ed courts or two superior courts in
the state held by any two of the state,
superior o judges had these con.
f1icting proceedings been conducted
in them; and right here we wish to
ask Governor Glenn a question: Had
the Southern Railway Company filed
the same petition before a state judge
that it did before the federal judge
and. on the showing made, secured Il
similar decree of injunction woul he
have dared to issue that famous letter
of instructions to the other fifteen 81
perior court judges of the state, o.
dering them to pay no attention tG
the decree of the other superior cOu [
Judge? He would not have dared to
do it because he would have known
that under the constitution OF the state
he had no right to do So. He had
just as much right to issue a mandate
TO the five justices of the supreme
court that they should not affirm any