The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1907-07-25

AEfk&&1 s1E&Al&Es sH%1TA804
"The court or justice or judge {.
whom snch application i made shall
forthwith award . writ of habeas cor-
pus, unless IL appears from the peti-
ton itself that the party Is noi euti.
tied thereto. The writ shall ~
directed TO the person in whose Gus.
.ody the party Is detained" Re
vised statutes, seetion 755
Notwithstanding the plain, proyis
.uns aid enaetments contained III the
consultation and revised statutes OF
tue United States as well as the State
constitution and the statutes Of the
State, ii is seriously eontended that
the agents of the complainant In thi.
instance, when indicted for the vio-
lation Of the statue, tthe enforcement
of which has been restrained by thu
eourtl are not entitled TO this remedy
which is afforded 10 every other cit
izen of the State.
If this policy Is 10 prevail in North
Carolina persons who invest then
money in enterprises like that of the
complainant will be deprived of th.
means of protecting their properi.
rights and denied the benefits of tlr
writ of habeas corpus which is in
tended for the preservation of the
liberty of every citizen. Ii will be
n sad day for the people of North
Carolina when its citizens are prohib-
tied by the acts of the Legislature
from asserting any right guaranteed
to them by the constitution of the
United. States. Suits of this charac-
ter have been brought in different
States Of the Union and in every in
stance the Federal Courts have pro-
ceeded to determine the question in
volved without interference, hind
rance or delay by the Legislature or
judicial authorities of such States.
The equal protection of the law is
guaranteed to every citizen of the
United States and | shall employ all
means within the power of the court
to secure to all persons who may in
woke the jurisdiction of this court
such rights to the fullest extent OF
the law If the law is construed il,
spirit of fairness and impartiality
there can be no conflict of jurisdic
ton between the State courts and
those of the United States. Much
has been said in regard to the power
of a court of equity to enjoin the
prosecution Of a criminal case. In
the case of Robbins VS.. Los Angeles,
1915 U. S. 241, Mr.. Justice Day, who
delivered the opinion of the court,
in discussing this phase of the ques-
ton, said:
"It is well settled that where
property rights will be destroyed, un-
lawful interference by criminal pro-
ceedings, under a void law, or ordia-
ance, may be reached and controlled
by a decree of court of Equity
Dayis and Foreman Mfg. Co. VS.. Los
Angeles, 1S9 Z. S. 207-19, and cases
there cited.'
In this instance the Federal court
has not been the aggressor, but ha+
simply adopted the regular practice
and procedure which has been APP
proved by the Supreme Court of the
United States in eases of alike ma
ture, and while the court is not inelin-
ed to do anything that will produce
an unseemly conflict, nevertheless, 1t
is encumbent upon it to protect the
rights Of the parties to this contro-
versy and the dignity and authority
of this court, and this cannot be ac-
complished without preserving to the
fullest extent the jurisdiction of the
court in determining the question
which has been submitted to it for
consideration.
Will Not Evade Issue.
If in pursuing the usual and well
defined practice and procedure IN
such cases with the sole view Of main
tanning the jurisdiction of this court
at any stage Of the proceeding, con.
fict must come, and I trust that il
may not, I shall not evade the res
possibility which is imposed upon me
as the presiding officer of this court
Much has been said about the sover-
eighty of State. That question does
not arise in this controversy. This
court having assumed jurisdiction OF
| the subject matter involved in the
original suit, wherein the railroad
companies are complainants, and the
| railroad commissioners and others arr
defendants, the real question is as t
| whether this court shall be denied
full and complete jurisdiction Of th'
| subject matter as issue In that SUIT
| If the contention Of counsel repre-
senting the State be true, then this
court can be deprived Of its jurisdic
ton by the multiplication Of criminal
prosecutions in the State courts
against the complainant, its agent;
and employees to such an extent a
to finally place it in position where
it will be deprived of larger amount
than that which is involved in ths
original controversy, and, thus by IN
direction the complainant will be de
MED right which is guaranteed t.
| it by the constitution of the United
States. This proposition is incon
sistent with the well established rule
of judicial procedure and does no
commend itself tc this or any cour
sitting as a court of equity. 1t ex
cludes the idea of comfy betweeI
courts of current jurisdiction
| Judge Pritchard cites judicia
opinions to show that the penah.
clause of the rate act is of such ma
ture as to deprive the railroads o
due process of law, and is therefor
unconstitutional. He also cites
f<n