The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-08-06
From the Plttsburg Dispatch.


 x@ HAT looks like the utmost pass NRV of conflict between states and
 w corporations appears in the cancellation of the license granted by the state of Alabama to the Southern Raii- way company to conduct it's business in that state. On lltigated issue between the state and this corporation the latter took an appeal to the United States court. A statute of the state provides that If corporation attempts to avoid the enforce ment of state legislation by appeal to the federal courts It's license to conduct busi- ness shall be revoked. The secretary of state therefore cancelled the license of the Southern railway
 It Is evident that this official had no op- ton but to perform the ministerial duty prescribed In the statute. It Is not his function to pass upon the constitutional ity of any statute. But the issue whether 1t is valid for a state to impose penalties on the appeal to the federal courts is nevertheless a pivotal one. The Dispa tch has made 1t plain that it Is strongly in sympathy with state Legislation for d reasonable and just regula ton of trans portation. It has not concealed It's opin ion that one respect in which there has been a material encroachment on the legitimate powers of the state has been the assumption by United States district and circuit courts of practical supervision over the state power of regulation. It has little doubt that the length to which this has been carried is largely respon- sib]e for the irritation which produces such measures as this of the state of Ala bama. But with all It's sympathy fof maintenance of the real state rights 1t does not hesitate to say that they cannot include the right to prohibit by severe and effective penalties the resort to tine United States courts to pass upon rights existing or claimed under the United States constitution.
 The impossibillty of the maintenance of such an act arises out of the nature Of the case. To forbid the legal resort to uphold constitutional rights is to take away the constitutional rights them selves. The United States guarantees cer- tain rights to all it's citizens and pro- vides courts having jurisdiction over all cases arising under the constitution If any state can forbid the resort to the United States courts on the question whether the federal constitution has been infringed 1t can nullify every constitu- tional guarantee contained in that instru- ment With such a right reserved to the states the constitution of the United States would be no better than waste pa per.
 It does not matter as to the validity or propriety of such an act whether the orig hal issue taken to the United States courts is well founded or not. The Dis patch has expressed it's firm conviction that United States courts should exer- else great care in overruling state enact ments on the question, not of law but of fact. whether they are conffscatory. and has not concealed its opinion that some of them have not observed that care. But that does not at all avoid the necessity that there must be decisive tribunals to which people who think their constitu case, and the United States constitution designates the United States courts for that purpose. No state can undertake to shut the door of the United States courts to those affected by its leglsla- ton.
 It seems quite probable that the remedy against the action under the Alabama law would come unoer the class designated by the United States supreme court in Fitts