The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1907-07-25
Judge Pritchard in a Tight Place.

This (editorial from the Charlotte
Observer was written before the final
outcome OF the matter in Wake Su-
perior court last week:
In issuing a blanket order forbid
ding any one whomsOever from in
stituting or prosecuting any suit Or
other proceeding, either civil or Grim
inal against the Southern Railway
or it's agents under the State laws
prescribing reduced rates. Judge
Pritchard, to our mind, made all al
ready sufficiently bad matter worse.
While the restraining order specifi-
cally names Mr.. J. A. Spence and
seventeen clients in penalty suits
brought in Randolph county Supe
rior court and Mr.. b. {. Beckwith,
OF Raleigh, the human target upon
whom it's aim really centers is Judge
BENJAMIN Franklin Long, of the Su
perior Court of North Carolina, now
holding court at Raleigh. Judge
Longs grand jury charge, early last
week is fresh in the public recollection
Laying it down as IL clear matter OF
law that Federal courts cannot re-
strain State courts except where
bankruptcy proceedings are con-
cerned. he calls to the grand jury's
attention the passenger fare statutes
provision prosecuting disobedient
railroad officials or employees and
bade the jurymen do their duty ac-
cordingly. 1t is an interesting coin
cidence that four bills of Indictment
against Thomas f. Green, Raleigh
ticket agent of the Southern were re-
turned the very day that Judge
Pritclard fired this second round of
ammunition at the State. Unless
room for possible backing-down was
desired the restraining order might
as we'll have expressly included any
and all officers of the State.
The public will recall that Judge
Longs position in this matter is
based upon Section 72O, Revised
Statutes of the United States For
the second time we quote:
The writ of Injunction shall not be
granted by any court of the United
States to stay proceedings in any court
of State, except in cases where such in-
junction may be authorized by any law
relating to proceedings in bankruptcy
This, be it remembered, is not IL
State law with which Judge Pritchard
must reckOn-unfOrtunately he does
| not seem to care about Il little thing
like IA State law-but Il Federal law
The provision could hardly be more
explicit. Federal Judges are positive
| ly forbidden to enjoin any proceed
| ings III State courts except such us
come under the national bankruptcy
laws. This prohibition Judge Pritch-
ard has fatty contravened. We know
| of no defense to be made for his ac-
ton except such as may rest upon the
| broad ground that court has the
| Inherent right to protect it's jurisdic-
ton and that this right is inalienable
Such Il defense would be valid for the
Supreme Court OF the United States
but hardly for IL United States Cir
cult Judge. The Supreme Court is the
creature OF the constitution, cO-ordi,
nate with Congress and the Executive
Congress and the Executive can in.
fiuence it onl by increasing the mum
Der of Justices. If it holds any right
to be inherent in itself there is none
to say nay. Judge Pritchard's court
on the other hand, is zone of those
courts inferior to the Supreme Court
which the constitution authorized
Congress to create. His court cal
be totally abolished by Congress at
any time, and yet, to all appearance
he has nullified an act OF Congress as
though he we're the Supreme Court
itself. The question hinges upon the
legality of his anti-Long restraining
order. If this point be settled in his
favor criticism must bark back to
the original step which involved the
necessity ofhigh-handed though law
full measures to support it. The cas-
is clearl y one where il Judge would be
justified in exhausting legal means
to support a rightful Jurisdiction sucl
as Judge Pritchard-we think mis-
Observation-Disclosures his to be Of what