The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-08-19

 by the supreme court as authority of the statement 1t made on this point, the vice chancellor said: "The jurisdiction of this court is to protect property, and 1t will interfere by injunction to stay any pro- ceedings, whether connected with crime or not, which go to the immediate, or tend to the ultimate destruction of property, or make it less valuable for use and occupd- tion." In Dobblns vs. Los Angeles, l9o U. S.. 241 the supreme court declares: Tt is well settled that where property rights will be destroyed unlawful interference by criminal proceedings under void law or ordinance, may be reached and con- trolled by the decree of court of equity. In Prout vs. Starr, 188 U. S., 544, the same question Is discussed in relation to the power of the court of equity to re- strain the attorney general of state, by injunction of the United States court from enforcing the criminal laws of the state" and notwithstanding the attof- ney generals protest, he was enjoined from enforcing the criminal laws of the state, because the supreme court was or the opinion that the statute was void That case was a sequel of the case ot Smyth against Ames, in which the su- preme court affirmed a Judgment or the circuit court which in limfne enjoined the execution of the criminal laws of Ne
 
 prescribed by it's statute. The case of Prout vs Starr cites Fitts against Me Ghee, 172 U. S., 5l6, and departs from It. MT. Justice Harlan, concurfing in the latter case, though not In all the req soning of the opinion" and his concurring opinion is really a quasi dissent from decision which was really departure from what was decided in Fitts against McGhee The supreme court, in Prout
 alTc nf a of the circuit court to prevent "the trans fer of the very matter that sought for judgment in a federal court to the state court" course which the supreme court said might bring on conflict between the courts and create the confusion so depre- cated by this court. Peck vs. Jennesa, IS How. 265" Here, as there, the court had acquired jurisdiction to decide the property right involved the right 10 make the charge on the filing of the bill, and it's Jurisdiction could not "be defeated or impaired by tine institution of subsequent proceedings whether civil or criminal, m Volving the same legal questions Tn lhe state court" Harlrader Vs Wadley' i'A r. &. 14S Aside from this. no court mas been more pronounced than the suprenle court of the United States, in holding that when the very same rgiht was peloIe state or United States court for ad1udlca-
 
 prosecution or otherwise" could transfer the decision of that matter from the court which first obtained jurisdiction, to an other court. It has more than once quot ed. with approval, the observation or Lofi Hardwick in the Mayor vs. Pllklhstoh' z Atkins S02 where Lord HardWick sali in reference to an order he made enjoin- ing a criminal prosecution, Ihe court eranted an order to stay the proceedings because the question of right was pending in a court in order to determine the right, and Therefore it was reasonable they should not proceed by action or indiot- ment until it was determined
 In all the decisions of the supreme court on this question. it is emphatic in holding that where the very matter u,on which the element of crime is based and the right to do that act is before n competent court, which has Jurisdiction 10 decide it, no other court can after wards test the matter by criminal or civil proceeding of any other court. It is to be observed also of Fitts against McGhee, that the statute by indictment under which the proceeding was had in that case was the mode prescribed by the law of the land for testing the valid ity of the tolls in that case. Here the remedy by the express law of the state, to say nothing of the rules of equity. is by a suit in a court of equity against the railroad commission. If such a law as we now have had been in force. 1t IS clear from all of Judge Harlan's opinions, that we would not have sanctioned Tor a moment, the idea of attempting to transfer the same question elsewhere. by indictment in another court. Neither the court which rendered that oplnioh' nor the eminent judge who wrote 1t, en- tertained for moment the idea as IS shown by all the prior and subsequent decisions in which that eminent Judge participated. that the Jurisdiction or
 
 CONTINUED ON PAGE 3.)