The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-11-23
Nr. Stone Defends Course
 M Seeking Mjunction

they are unconstitutional. The supreme court of the United States and of all the states hold it to be the duty of courts
 to prevent the operation of such laws" If they are unreasonable. A court must get at the facts before it can say whether
 a law is reasonable or unreasonable. If,
 starting out with the prima facie validity
 of the statute. an apparent case is made
 that the carrier will be ruined by the in-
 forcement of the rate, pending such in-
 vestigation, it is the duty of the court
 under all the decisions, to "stop the
 operation of the law until all the facts
 can be ascertained. The supreme court
 Of the United States has always insisted
 on such action by the courts. Thus in the
 case of Hovey vs. Mcdonald, 109 U. S., 150, that court said Ut was the right and duty of the trial court to sustain, if , possible, the status quo, pending an ap- peal, if the questions at issue are in- volved in doubt" In Cotting vs. Kansas City Stock Yards company, 1S3, U. s. 19. which involved the regulation of charges of the Kansas City stock yards, the judge who tried the case decided the rates were valid and dismissed the bill but stated it was his duty if the case should be appealed, to continue the in- Junction In force until the supreme court heard the case by taking bond, etc. The supreme court reversed the lower court and held the act unconstitutional It commended Judge Thayer's action and showed that but for it the Stock Yards company would have lost nearly a uuar- ter of a million of dollars from putting
 the statute in force, pending the litiga-
 tion' whereas. under the course pursued,
 no ones rights were denied.
 If court has power to declare a law unconstitutional, certainly it can wait until it can get the facts which show whether this be or not and
 in the meantime preserve the status
 quo to prevent irreparable injury" If political passion had not been injected into these lawsuits, no extra session
 would have been called. The state had passed it's laws and the question of
 their enforcement was in the courts.
 The state is not above the law any
 more than an individual, and has no right to take mans property away
 from him without due process any
 more than an individual has. Think
 you any such objections would have
 been made to an injunction if it af-
 fected the rates for chares of public
 ginners, hackmen, bakers, wharfingers
 and other occupations. of which the
 state regulates and fixes the charges? If the legislature had passed a bill, for
 instance, that a public ginner should not charge more than cents a bale
 for ginning cotton, and put enormous
 fines upon them If they did so, would
 you think it just to insist that they
 either abandon their business or sub
 init to great loss by ginning at rate
 which was confscatory? Would not
 everybody say it was proper for the court to allow them to go with their business by giving bond to secure their customers, and protecting them
 by injunction against interference, un- til the unreasona beness of the rates can be shown? Would you say it was right to force warehouseman out of business. or else to run his business at loss, if the legislature fixed his charges so low, that he could not live and carry on the business? Certainly you would not. There is no difference in principle between those cases and the present cases. A man has a right to go into court even with bad case and get such protection of the law as the established customs of the court provide. If he has bad case he loses it, and will have to make good his overcharges. If he has a good case and the law is, nevertheless, en- forced he is ruined. The courts, and not the newspapers or the legislature, must settle the question.
 States rights are not involved by the operation of the constitution of the United States. which is made the preme law, and cannot be an invasion of states rights. The states surren- dered to the United States the power to settle these very questions in the federal court. For many years the question has been considered settled. It is irrevocably settled if we are to abide by the decisions of the supreme court of the United States.
 Every good American believes in our dual system of government. Let us render to Caesar the things that are Caesars" It Is most unwise and in furious in every way to the best inter- ests of society to insist that the states have rights in matters which they have deliberately surrendered. No one dreams that these cases can be finally settled except by the supreme court of the United States, and it must get them in the regular way by appeal from the state or federal court, ac- cordingly as the case is commenced in 1 a lower federal or state court. This article is already too long. I close it with the following quotation from de- cision of the supreme court in the case of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St.