The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-09-08

whether the rate statutes were valid and were legally capable of enforcement. This court alone had authority to deterulne these questions, and to stay proceedings until it could decide them. United States Vs Shlpp 2gs r. z. 563. It Is hard 10 conjecture the method of reasoning which induces anyone 10 believe notwithstand- ing litigation to test the validity Of the rates, has been initiated in the mode in- vited by the state statutes, and the opera- tion of those statutes have been sus- pended in the mode provided. as well as enioined under the equity powers of the court, that the stature meant nothing, ana that the lawmakers intended that carriers who resisted the rate in the mode pio- vided in the court Of equity, should at the same time be subjected to proscco- lions and indictment to test the very same matter at the same time in the criminal court. Such a construction of the stat- utes would impute bad faith and dishpnor fo the legislature, for which there is ab- solutey no warrant.
 The supreme court has frequently de- clared that when state court ana United States court may each take Jurls- diction of matter the tribunal whose jurisdiction first attaches holds It to the exclusion of every other untll the uuts is fullv performed and the jurisdiction IS pxhgIlgtGn,
 both in civil and criminal cases. It has also decided time and again if the ied- eral court first obtained jurisdiction or the enbioct matter it might enjoin proceed inps in the state court affecting the salhe matter. The latest Of series ol 's- cisions on this point is Julian Vs. the Central Trust Co. 193 Y. $. ll2 hoer these plain principles there can pc io doubt of the power Of court oI equits ,ti
 Ifa amended p
 r., grant inc preliminary injunctions asked a,,d +o nrevent the transfer of the ques. tiop before it 10 any other court, ciVh or criminal. osas
 rbe restraining orders. in these ca ases
 s.a o.ranted at a time$of great pubic excitement. when every effort was pc inc made to incite resistance to ,po .9 nrocess of the court, and stir up sPii ie af sodition bv constant iteration or tho assertion that the oraers III aIaa t'a ,,ron ,',,ttleselv and illegally trampled upon inc right of the people to puI,isn ,,.ia,o" II was important not only thae tt,a rties defendant, but the pupllc as
 -, sbould not be misled as to lile ,,is.i,t of the court to make tn csc oruefs' a,sa tbo rea1 extent to which they went ,rba court. therefore, hied ah opi,iio'i upon the legal questions raiseo' III granting the restraining orders' reserV- ft,f4 n n other legal questions which might be da1,o1oned bv the answer. The opinion stated that it had necessarily hereto fore nassed upon the jurisdlctlonal question. It was distinctly stated that no other questions were decided anu that thev were reserved Tor the coin- ing in of the answers. There was no nossible legal defense so far as the Jurisdiction was concerned, except that
 haVa jurisdiction either of the person or the subject ,natter or that the amended bill was a suit against the state, or that the cour, had no jurisdiction to enjoin "criminal araeacutions." No other legal defence could he raised as to that. The equity of the bill in other respects was ho' nassed upon. Upon that legal ques, tfon, the court had repeatedly passeu solemn judgment. Moreover, as known to counsel. the court several years be- fore in Express Go. vs. Ensley, It Federal Reporter, 756, had decided souareIy the power of court Of equity to enioln so-called criminal prosecu- lions under a void law or ordinance The legal defense, so far as the Juris' diction of the court was concerned, was no longer an open question, and any ottempt to challenge 1t anew, was nee essarily an application for rehear' ing on that point. Every court 1s bound by it's own decisions, otherwise there would be no certainty in the law If subsequent case arises, involving the principle decided in prior case the judgment in the prior case controls The application of the principle 10 tnf subsequent case is not, as everybody knows. "prejudgmenl. of the subse ouent case. but the application to 1t ot the law as it is. When d c9urt has solemnly adjudged a principle of law if Is not bound, by any rule of law or ethics in discussing any order 1t feels