The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-10-12

-" =" -" fE"W* WNE"M' ~. -.
ss~vrisl ei,e % gssAsfas. r-re -eksv~serv
vs's n sNs~~prs % fsy-s.~s ~ ksse -
ss.ss., ss.-s.. y. -es-~...~s SOS -
SOC s.sstssss ~ 80 fsssFsi slsvs-~rtses
esrs wsss~ess ssss $1,000 ~ ss sssrs 80
fwsNufsx ~ - s4stse w NAste ees ssaere -
iss sas fssse~ss's As~s 80 e-ts sNl'si ~ 'ss.~
sssg
ls~s w. s~svs s..s s-s,~~s !. =. go
ssrg essrs v 10 sas
tsssV Vss We ~ sps,rrs ESQ e.sssss ssss
Npss sgsrsNaNa psns ~srs eptsssers sfs sspps@sl
~ $3.50 ssHsf l~'ss-s' fss4 = . es~tss 49, ~
sss
~ eos, - ~. rs.su,s y !, ss.s v ~ sssss
- sr~s,si l~s.s.ss ss~sG ~ ssss ~ esss 800
lssl.s fssy ~ sss sss
Th~s~ cslslelssws sec N esures slws~f o.
ts~ psllrssss's s~f tss V~strys. c,,ets w sAs
pendles ereffwvesss~s w Alsse~s a
NcytA esfrlles
n 10 N. r~~ srrsrsr shss . Fep,~vsl es.ss
hsvsrs nr-s ssvsaswt ltt,~aHcfl.s ~ . rsS~
sssy rrisss thss l.wsst~,gsr sas srsv l>@-,~
~ S~,<~~sry ~esss ~ ..systr,t ~ NJ ssa ,hss
ths. ~lts.,sHac'ie~ eser~s ~ sf~-sss frr~a
ne e",,rs ~. csr vh~ er.sf, r~s,s~s ~ s~sssn
" " 10 ~ roe dkrsvis~ fhss sssss ls~s
csr 10 snesIlea w 10Th Fwsl~rsI and state
cs,,sts ~. unrrus,it~,rr-isv rat 10 10
WV NN.f Nv NHNINHNWE NV w W NMNN wv
MT ress Nv ~,ss~v ths ceNes~ss w tho legs
No rf-c~ed ~ a-~l With che plain ccr.si.
tufioual questions
<~-sion . ~ Article fif a~clar~s that the
~ivfic,sl power ~ the United ssssrs extends
to al cae~s IN law sna -p,atv arising urd~v
tho Constitution and tho laws " tho United
states. There 10 no s,Ich provision IN tina
alA--.l...-- = 81 - A. -
procedure In IL trial cour,s. whervbv q cown.
plainant can 'est tho coussitmionshsy ~ q
State lsw and from which q full record ran
IN carried Tn tho court ~ appellate iusts-
diction for t~vss~. :massse g pscviectsl
jury facing The commonplace ,ssu~s IN =
civil action and finding the facts In q casc
Involving the QUESTION ~ the violation ~ a
provision Of the Constitution ~ the United
ststesi Almost equally absurd IL tho prop
oeition that upon n referees report To tho
Superior Court u North Carolina tho Judge
should find the facts, In either casa the
Supreme Court II the state would be bound
by the fndines and would not review them.
Its decision would cover the rulings ~ the
court below and leave the equities out 81
Amusement AZ they would bc left out %
the record.
North Carolins's statutory provisions are
not remedial In cases such az the one IN
point; and had the Southern Railway Com"
pany filed its complaint in tho Superior
Court. as insisted by Governor Glenn and
his supporters. 1t would have lent itself sim
ply 10 the enactment Of a judicial farce. II
sought equity, and il would have continued
to founder in q smirc until submerged
by innumerable suits for damages for al
legged violations daily Of a sacred law Of a
sovereign State it's officials and employees
daily indicted and convicted for violating
the penal clause in the aw and sentenced TO
the cell o. the chain "A
To avoid these inevitable infections the
railway company. "A foreign corporation,
exercised its constitutional right. under the
constitution which the State of North Caro-
lima ratified in solemn assembly. 10y appeal
ing to the Circuit Court OF tho United States
having competent jurisdiction OF the dua
que~stions--of law m equity-instead of
appealing to the State court. which had no
jurisdiction.
Section ? Of Article III. provides that the
inferior Federal courts shall have iurisdic-
ton over all ceses in aw and equity in con-
~troversies bstween n State and a citizen Of
another State and between citizens Of differ
ent States. In the Alabama case this con-
stitutional provision strictly applied. hut the
railroad company was threatened with ex-
tinction for removing the case in which it's
constitutional rights were involved. Here
also the offending railroad was a foreign
corporation.
In the North Carolina case the suit was
instituted by. the railway company. net
against the State Of North Carolina but
against certain Of the State officials and all
other persops-exoepting 10 person but
not naming the Exc cuiive. The State had
no interest ip the property question. 1t
would neither gain nor lose any revenue
whatever by the enforcement or the failure
Of the legislative enactment in~controversy.
The Supreme Court has clearly established
the legal proposition that a suit TO restrain
State officials from enforcing or executing
a aw is not a suit against the State. The
charge that this suit was an attack upon
State sovereignty is not sustained. IL
could not rave been seriously entertained
even by the most adroit politician II he
was a goodlawyer. II it had been true the
State could have Immediately availed itself
OF the right to a hearing before the Supreme
Court Of the United States. Section 2 Of Arti
Gle III. provides that in all cases in which
a State 10 a party h Supreme Court has
original jurisdiction. After the lcarian
flight. how ever. we find the apostles Of State
rights in the arena below. patiently submit
ting 10 the ponderous routine OF procedure.
first before a referee for the finding Of fact;
secondly. in the trial OF the case on the
masters report in an inferior Federal court;
thirdly. In a final hearing upon the whole
record OF law n fact before the Supreme
bench taking appellate jurisdiction!
The Legislature Of North Carolina en-
acted the law in controversy. TO take effect
July I. 1907. In that assembly the rail-
roads doing business in the State were
arraigned and tried ex parte. They were
not invited to present facts nor to give
information pertinent to the discussion.
As In the Alabama Legislature, they were
adjudged guilty Of practising extortion
upon citizens Of the State by imposing
unreasonable charges for passenger and
freishc service and transportation; and a