The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-07-14
Outlav Bill Held in Viola
 fion U ths Consultation.
tcs.ti..e1 frs. PAss ose.,

lAs statuts approved March [. lse4. which provides that the DFtnglnf sss 2 Fsdersi Court "shaii ipso facto forfeit all its rights or HcenSe to ene4ge tn or carry on busfness 0rtginatinB ana ssrminatins in thiY state; Of ifsisas l to eneage in or carry on such 1usinsss h this State shall. by said act tself bs revoked and shall cease"
 0fnsr iews Tssks t II the .hs duty Sf tns General by appropriate proceedings Tn the court to enforce the provisions of this and the other statute. A restrain-
 src vss ana tsssS tse Searns on sns for liminary injunction went over until tho
 Only two of the complainants. the Louisvt1le and Nashville Railroad Com Ssni: Raiifoad Company. asked a cfe- Hmlnafy injunction as to some rates those cofhpanies had increased above the rstes in force on the first of Jan- made. the maxiMum rate thereafter to be charged. Those companies dong with the other companies asked . pre- liminary injunction against all the and this statement, does not deal with tho right of the two latter companies es to the increased rates, no order having been made as to them. pending further investigation. 1~. cases, the issue of the preliminary in- functions was taken up on the alle- Eations of the sworn bills. on May Sth. iSo1, in all the cases. save those of Company and the South and North Alabama Railroad Company
 Text of Opinfen.
 Jones, District Judge: These pre- liminary intunctions concern matters had no opportunity at the time they were granted to file an opinion, and does 90 now.
 Clearly if the act of March $. 1907, which. upon the institution of these complainants to do intra-state business can be. upheld, there b no equity in nompfafnant's bills. except as to ante cedent transactions in domestic com ute. If 1t be constitutional. complain ants would have no right to enjoin the enforcement of rates in future for car fying on business, in which they would then nave no right to engage. The the very threshold of the litigation. While courts are reluctant on prelifni- nary hearing to pronounce on the con- sstitutlonaiity sn,,a of 2 statute, litigation Is an illustration. when court is com- pelled to decide such a question.
 The obvious fact that the statute recks little of consequences, and that It's enforcement would disorder indus- try. trade and travel and entail great hardship, and loss in many ways upon communities end thousands of individ- uals. by depriving them of their usual means of transportation, in their inter- course and commerce within this State, sheds no light whatever upon the au- thority of the Legislature to enact the statute. The wisdom or unwisdom of the statute Is question the Constitu- and Judgment of the law-makers. The courts, whatever may be their view of the policy of the statute. must uphold the enactment, feAardless of conse- Quences, unless the Legislature, in its passage, infrinEed some express prohi- bition or necessary implication of the State or Federal Constitution. Unless thus restrained, the legislAtiva power of the State is supreme.
 Section z40 of the Constitutisn of Ala
 balna.
 Among other provisions of the Con- stitutfon of Alabama, bearing upon this matter. Is Section 2l0. which or- dains. "that all corporations shall have the right to sue. and shall be subject to be sued in all courts, in like cases, as natural persona" This provision is found at the close of the article reSt- latinH foreign corporations" and cor porations chartered under the laws of this State" Tho framers of the Con- stitution were we'll aware that from the foundation of the State, foreign corporations had exercised the right to