The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-09-05

l mands such course Fitzpatrick vs. Lottery Co.. three Woods Reports. 8ls; Hutchinson vs Beekman, ilS
 Federal Reporter. 401; both of which
 cases are 'on all-fours' with this.
 Tt was settled centuries ago, that
 such action by court of equity, was
 not Invasive of the Jurisdiction or dignity of the law courts Hardly a
 day passed in courts of much business,
 where such orders are not made, and
 no one thinks of questioning either their proprfety or legality.
 "Nuiification and sedition.'
 Under such circumstances, to at,
 tempt to use the power of 8 State court, or any other court, to defeat and un- dermine the Jurisdiction of the court | which first obtained it, Is neither more
 nor less than an attempt to make null 1 lification and sedition effective ana l respectable. by lending them the name 1 of the State to accomplish their pur-
 poses, contrary to the Constitution and l laws of Alabama. and the Supreme Law l of the Land
 An employer has a property right | in the services of his workmen in his | business. The employer can main l tain an action against any one who l entices his servant to leave him. or prevents the servant from working for | his employer. This property right IS protected by the sanction of our crimf-
 nal laws also.
 We have here a case of threatened 1 interference with the officers and operatives of railroads over a thousand
 miles in length, which feed the com
 merce of the most important cities of | the State, and traverse it's entire length. l The constant and recurring arrests or l operatives which are here threatened
 are to be effected to keep them from doing their employers work. and by | that means to force 1t to forego the exercise of constitutional rights. and the benefit of protective writs of the court whose Jurisdiction 1t has in | voked for the settlement of the very question, among others, whether its business may be lawfully destroyed by | such arrests.
 "The compIainants have thousands of employees. engaged, at the same time alike in State and interstate commerce, | in the delicate operation of handling the running of hundreds of trains daily. The least disorder and distur- bance of the movement of trains may | result in disastrous loss of life ana property. If complatnants' servants may be arrested, wherever found. in any of the numerous counties which their roads traverse, whenever anyone chooses to swear out a warrant or procure an indictment, it would inflict untold harm not only upon the carriers but irreparable injury upon every pub lie and private interest which IS served l by the carriers.
 Not only domestic business would be conEested and delayed, but vast injury would be done the great volume of interstate commerce which uses this great highway. and vexations hindrances and delays would obstruct travellers and the orderly operation of a post-road of the United States. and the proper dispatch of its mails there- on.
 And all this, in order to coerce carrier to abandon right it has under the Constitution and laws to be pro- tected by writs of the proper courts from irreparable injury, while the facts are being gathered upon which alone 1t can be ascertained whether the statutes, the enforcement of which Is entoined can ever have any force.
 Undoubted Power to EnjOin.
 The court has undoubted power to enjoin such arrests, not only because they would result In irreparable in- jury, but for the further reason that they constitute "endeavors' to 'ob- struct or impede the due administration of justice. in these cases. under Sec tion 5399 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
 "The authorities are unbroken and
  circumstances, equity must intervene by It's preventive remedies. Osborn vs Bank, nine Wheaton. 73S; Davis vs Los Angeles, lS9 United States, 217; Dobbins vs Los Angeles, 195 United States 223. No court has been more pronounced in this direction than the Supreme Court of Alabama, in a series of decisions commencing with Mayor vs. Rodgers, 10 Alabama, 37, and rum ming down to the present time, in- cluding Port of Mobile vs. Railway Co.,, S4 Ala, 123 City Council vs. Railroad Co.,, s4 Ala, 131.
 'As the great Story observes, If, | indeed courts of equity did not inter- | fere in cases of this sort, there would | be a great failure of justice in this country Story's Eq Jur., Section | BPS. The arrests. under the circum- stances stated in the amended bills, | would involve direct trespasses upon | the property of complainants, and even | If Fitts vs McGhee were applicable to | the case here presented, would fall | within the express exceptions the | opinion in that case states on pages | 52S and 529
 What is the difference in the issue | sought to he raised by the prosecutions | asked to be enjoined. and the issue | pending in this court on bill in equity l as to these rates? None at all They | present the identical question. The | same proof in either court will defeat l or maintain the rate. No greater or | less degree of proof Is required in | either case. No proof can possibly be | offered upon the trial of an indictment | to the rates which would not be | competent evidence in the civil suit | concerning them.
 Equity Case Decides 1t.
 "A judgment either way in criminal prosecutions would not bind the State or the public. A judgment either way, In the equity suit, will determine the whole question as regards the State, the public. the customer and the car rier. To quote the language of the Supreme Court. The same rights are involved in the civil and criminal cases, and the legal question involved is the same. See Harkrader vs. Wadley, 172 United States, 167. where the court in declining to allow interference with the indictment in that case. put its re- fusal upon the distinct ground, that the fallacy in the argument of the appellee in the present case is the as- sumption that the same right was in- VOlved in the criminal case n the State l