New-York tribune., 1907-10-04
FEDERAL COURTS AND THE STATES.

The attorneys general of fourteen states met
this week in st. Louis for the purpose of form
ing organization and expressing through it
their dissatisfaction with what many of them
consider the too aggressive action of the lower
federal courts in annuing or suspending
state statutes. Among the states represented
were Missouri, Alabama, Nebraska and Mime
sofa. in all of which friction has recently devel-
Oped between federal judges and state admin
stratiOnS. The general complaint of the heads
of the state law departments present at 81
Louis that state rights were being over
shadowed by federal rights, and that the fed
eral district and circuit judges were unduiy
extending their jurisdiction Remedies for this
alleged grievance were suggested, ranging from
the repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment 10
legislation by Congress restricting the issue OF
iniunctions by federal courts hindering any
state officer from carrying out his official duties
The attorney general of a state is naturally
chagrined when he finds himself enjoined by a
federal court from prosecuting under Il state
law. and in his Indignation is likely TO talk OF
federal interference and oppression. But in
his overheate,i state of mind he is also likely
TO forget that the federal court has duty
which II cannot shrk-the duty of protecting
the rights of any claimant electing TO seek its
jurisdiction. In a great range Of cases the state
and federal courts must act COncurrenhY. ana
under the Fourteenth Amendment TO the Con
stitution the federal courts have the fullest
license to examine and overTule the legislation
and even the constitutions of the states, if they
"abridge the privileges and immunities of Citl-
''zens of the United States, deprive any per-
"son of life, liberty and property without due
process Of law or deny to any person the
equal protection of the laws" As we have ire
Quenty had occasion to say. this is the most
"federalistic" of all the articles in the Con
stitution. for 1t subjects all the legislation of
the states to the scrutiny and approval of
Judges appointed by the federal executive. The
federal courts are open and must remain open
under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment
to any plaintiff who thinks his personal or
property rights impaired by state action.
In the face of this amendment and in view
of the unavoidable expansion of the jurisdiction
of the federal courts it is idle to talk about the
wrong and scandal Of federal interference with
state legislation. We cannot go back, if we
would. TO the primitive division of jurisdiction,
when the state courts were the seat of nearly
all Litigation and the federal courts were few
and little resorted TO. AS the Capitalization
of commerce and industry magnfed a million
times the efficacy of the interstate commerce
clause of the Constitution. SO the nationalist
ton of business has shifted a large part of
the burden of legal administration from state
to federal courts.
Chief Justice Clark. of the North Carolina
Supreme Court says that under John Mar
shalrs lead the United States Supreme Court
"usurped" the power to annul acts of Con
gress. But he admits that such usurpatiOn was
beneficent and that no one now would seriously
seek 10 deny the courts "usurped" authority.
The federal courts have waXed powerful and
ramified in jurisdiction because national growth
compelled that expansion and ramifcation. II
would he irrational and unphilosophic to at
tempt to reverse the process and to strip the
federal courts Of their enlarged functions Pos
sibly stricter regard for comfy might de
crease the friction between state courts and
federal courts complained Of in few states
But the federal courts have now A Judgement in
our governmental system which no reactionary
agitation for state isolation can hope TO shake