The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-24

Ine IolOWlDg letteT mas pech sWh. ten in reply to an editorial in The Age Herald
 Montgomery, Ala, Nov. 22. 1907. To the Editor of The Age-Herald:
 I am sure you advocate what you be- lIeve to be right. am equally sure by appeals to prejudice Your edito; Wherefores of the Session" is based largely, upon a misapprehsnsion @ or tne me catch as catch can injunction" in the rate litigation in Alabama. The state had plenty of time. It offered no cyl injunctions. They said they would not appeal from them. Those are the in functions which you insist justified the eSsVe We iesst0ni haSs no better guide in these matters than the Supreme Corut of the Smyth vs. Ames, 1s9 U. S., 466s said; holders in the corporations named, ask ed decree enjoining the eHforcemens of certain rates for transportation, up on the ground that the statue prescrib- tuition of the United States. Under the principles which in t'ie Federal system distinguish cases in law from those in equity. the circuit court ,t or nan sne msrs m a comprehensive decree covering the whole ground of controversy, and thus avoid the multiplicity of suits that would inevitably arise under the stat. ute. The carrier Is made liable, net only to individual persons for every act matter or thing prohibited by the statute, and for every omission 70 go done, but to a fine of from sl,O0C to $5.000 for the first offense; from $5.00o l to $10 900 for the second offense; from and s2S0oS for every. subsequent of- fense. NThe transactions along the | lines of any one of these railroads, put of which causes of action might arise under the statute, are so numerous ana varied that the interference of equity could well he justified, upon the ground that a general decref, acording to the prayer of the bills, would avoid null 1 tiplicity of suits. and give remedy more certain and effcacious than could be given in any proceeding instituted against the company in court of law; for a court of law could only deal with each separate transaction involving | the rates to be charged for transporta- tion. The transactions of a single week 1 ipg the validity of the statute to a 1vast number of suits by shippers, to say nothing of the heavy penalties named in the statute. Opiy a court emergency and deterp1ine once and. for all, and without multiplicitys of suits. matters that affect not simply individuals. but the interests of the l use of a public highway Is maintain
 "The tendency or inadequacq of a rights of one entitled upon any ground to invoke the powers of Federal Court Is not to he conciusively de- termined by the statutes of the partic- ular- State in which suit may be brought. One who is entitled to sue in the Federal Court may invoke it's jurisdiction in equity whenever the es- permit such a suit in that court and he cannot be deprived of that right by reason of his being allowed to sue at law in State court or the same cause of action:'
 Injunctions are older than our coun-- try. and nave been long employed not because the rich" or the poor may be involved, but because justice and lished. The Supreme Court of our State has frequently used them, as well as writs of prohibition. to. prevent ac- tion under laws until the facts are as- certained, which can give the court suf-
 icient information 70 determine whether law is valid or not. Every sioners courts have been restrained from building court houses. until the courts could inquire into the validity of the law providing for taxation, etc. The same course has been pursued to prevent the holding of courts under laws whose eonstitutionality Is denied, all because it is greatly to the inter- est of the public that these laws should not be put in force at once, but only after inquiry and decision by the courts that they aye right and legal
 Freight and passenger laws under the Constitution are valid or not, ac- cordingly they are reasonable. IT they do not produce far returns on the value of the property employed In Ala bama business Whey are constitutional The Supreme Court of the United states and of all the States hold 1t to be the duty of courts tn prevent the opera tion of such laws" if they are unreas- onable. A court Snust get at the facts before it can say whether a law Is reasonable or unreasonable. If start ing out with the prima facie validity of the statute. an apparent case IS made that the carrier will be ruined by the enforcement of the rate. pending such investigation, 1t Is the duty of the court under all the decisions, to "stop the operation of the law" unttl all the facts can be ascertained. The Supreme Court of the United States has
 always insisted on such action by the
 courts. Thus in the case of Hovey vs:
 McDonald 109 IT. &. 150, that court
 said: Ut was the right and duty of the trial court to sustain. if possible
 the status quo, pending an appeal, ii the questions at issue are involved m ldoubt." In CottinE vs. Kansas City