The Washington herald., 1907-07-23

assistant attorney. general of that State,
for the purpose Of obtaining protection Of
the fourteenth amendment TO the Con-
stitution Of the United States against an
act of the legislature of North Carolina,
establishing maximum rates, which such
companies claimed 10 be conhscatory, and
on q prima facie case motion was made
before me for interlOcutory injunctions.
Accordingly, on the 10Th Of June I is
sued injunctiOns pendente lite enjoining
the defendants and all other persons from
putting the rates into effect during the
inquiry before me as to the constitution
ality Of the same. and from tnstituting
prosecution or attempting to impose pen
alties upon the companies or their en-
ployes for a failure To put into effect the
statutory rates which are being con-
tested. The court amply preserved the
rights of all the travelling public by re-
curing a coupon 10 be given to each
purchaser evideAcing the amount to be
refunded to him IN the event the rates
should be upheld, and to secure the same
ample bond and security were given.
Authority of L. :. Court Questioned.
Notwithstanding the United States Cir
cult Court had thus taken jurisdiction of
the whole matter and was proceeding in
an orderly way with its consideration. the
evidence shows that the governor Of
North Carolina has issued an address 10
the judges of the superior courts OF the
State questioning the authority OF the
court to make the order referred 10, and
asking them TO see that Indictments
against the agents and employees Of the
railroads and their officials be sent be-
fore the grand Jury in order that the
State may undertake the prosecutions
which are enjOined Ia my order, and stat
ing that as chief executive OF the State,
he stands readily TO aid them in enfoTe-
ing the law
I'm accordance with this policy. a num-
Der or indictments have been found and
prosecutions begun in defiance of the or
der Of injunction issued by the United
States Circuit Court.
Not only are the rights Of litigatlOns
involved. but the dignity and authority Of
the Circuit Court OF the United States as
well. These prosecutions and arrests.
taking place IN widely separated portions
Of the State. present serious difficulties in
the matter. and this court is confronted
with open and ayOwed opposition by the
powers of the State. Obstacles are being
thrown IN the way Of inquiry by this
court on WTits Of habeas corpus into the
legality Of arrests, and this seems to be
the deliberate policy Of those representing
the State. / do not wish TO be understood
as imputnS improper motives 10 the gov
ern0r or other State officials as respects
prescribed by the State statute for charg-
ing more than the statutory rates are so
enormous that II permitted to be enforced
1 they would practically bankrupt the rail-
roads in an exceedingly brief time. and
before d final hearing could be had in the
cause, and thus place the complainant in
a position where 10 would be powerleSS to
assert the night which is guaranteed TO II
by the Constitution OF the United States.
Ample Protection Is Afforded.
If the criminal prosecutions against the
agents. conductors, and employees are per
mitted 10 continue, the managers Of the
railroads cannot successfully operate
their trains, carry The mails. or continue
their usefulness In interstate commerce.
THE State Constitution of North Caro-
lima, as well as the statutory law. afford
ample protection 10 every citizen who is
deprived OF his liberty without due proc
esS Of law. and. such being the case, il is
remarkable thdt any one representing the
state should be opposed 20 the granting
OF the writ of habeas corpus. Likewise.
the Constitution Of the United States and
the revised statutes afford every citizen of
the Union, when imprisoned contrary TO
law. protection 10 the fullest extent by
the writ of habeas corpus.
Notwithstanding the plain provisions
and enactments contained In the C0nsti-
tuition and revised statutes Of the United
States. as well as the state Constitution
and the statute OF the State. IL IS seriously
cHntended that the agents of the COM
plainant IN this instance, when indicted
for the violation Of the statute (the en-
fOrcemeut Of which has been restrained
by this COURT. are not entitled 10 this
remedy which is afforded 10 every other
citizen of the State.
Would BE sad Day for state.
IF this policy is 20 prevail in North
Carolina, persons who invest their money
in enterprises like that Of the complain
ant viii be deprived OF the means OF pro-
tecting their property rights and denied
the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus
which is intended for the preservation OF
the liberty OF every citizen. II viii De a
sad day for the people of North Caro-
lima when its citizens are prohibited by
the acts of the legislature from assert
ing any right guaranteed to them by the
Constitution Of the United States Suits
or this character have been brought in
different states of the Union, and IN
every instance the Federal courts have
proceeded to determine the questions in
VOWED without interference. hindrance
or delay by the legislative or judicial au-
thOritieS Of such States. The equal pro-
lection OF the law is guaranteed to every
citizen Of the United States and ] shall
employ all means within the power Of
the court 10 secure to all persons who
may invoke the jurisdiction Of this court
such rights TO the fullest extent OF the
law. If The law is construed in a spirit
Of fairness and impartiality. there can
be no conflict Of jurisdiction between the
State courts and the courts Of the United
States. .
VIII Not Shirk Responsibility.
in this instance the Federal court has
not been the aggressor. but has simply
adopted the regular practice and pro-
cedure which has been approved by the
Supreme Court of the United States in
cases of like nature. and while the
court is not inclined to do anything that
viii produce an unseemly conflict never
theleSs IL Is Incumbent upon IL to pro-
tect the rights of the parties to this con
troverSy and the dignity and authority Of
this court and this cannot be accom-
plished without preserving to the fullest
extent the jurisdiction Of the court In de-
terminihg the question which has been
submitted to it for consideration.
If, in pursuing the usual and well-de-
fined practice and procedure in such cases
with the sole view OF maintaining the
jurisdiction of this court at any stage of
the proceedings, conflict must come, and
! trust that ii may not / shall not evade
the responsibility which is imposed upon
me as the presiding Oflcer Of this court.
States Sovereignty Not Involved.
Much mas been said about the sOVer-
eighty of the State; that question does not
arise in this controversy This court,
having assumed jurisdiction of the sub
ject matter involved IN the original suit.
wherein the railroad companies are COM
plainants, and the railroad commission
ers and others are defendants, the real
question is as to whether this court shall
be denied full and complete jurisdiction
OF the subject matter at issue in that
suit
If the contention of counsel represent
ing the State be true, then this court
can be deprived OF its jurisdiction by the
criminal prosecutions in the State court
against the complainant. its agents. and
employees to such an extent as to finally
place it in position where it will be
denriYed of a larger amount than TINT