The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-24
MR. STONE DEFENDS COURSE
 LN SEEKING INJUNCTION,
Dismissed.

Stock Yards Company. 1ss II. S., 7s. which inyolysd the regulstion G,,a ..,,ss of yards. the judge who tried the. case decided the rates were valid and dis missed the bill but stated 1t was his duty if the case should be appealed. to continue thS injunction in force un- til the Supreme Court heard the case by taking bond, etc. The Supreme Court reversed the iower court, and ned the drs nst e;on showed that but for it the Stock Yards Company would have lost near ly quarter of million dollars from the litigation, whereas, under the course pursued, no one's rights were denied.
 If court has power to declare law unconstitutional: certainly It can show whether this oe so or not. and "in the meantime preserve the status quo to prevent irreparable injuiry, 1T cd into these lawsuits. no extra ses- sion would have been called. The State had passed. its laws and the question of their enforcement was in the courts more than an individual. and has no right to take a msh's property away from him without due process any you any such objections would have been made tc an injunction if it .af- fected the rates for charges of public ginners, hackmen, bakers wharnngers State regulates and fixes the charges? If the Legislature had passed Dill, for instance, that public sinner a HoSe bsie for S ginning lotion, and put snor- nous fines upon them if they did so, would you think 1t just to insist that they either abandon their business or submit to great loss by-ginning at rate which was eonhscatory? Would not everybody say 1t was proper for the court to allow them to go on with their business by giving bond to se- them by injunction against fnterfer-- ence. until the unreascnableness of the rates can be shown? Would you say 1t was right to force a warehouse man out of business, or else to run his business at loss, if the Legislature 1 fixed his charges so low that he could Certainly you would not. There Is no difference in principle between %hose cases and the present cases. man has a right to gc into court even with bad case, and get such protection of the law as the established customs of the court provide. If he has bad
 od hs hns ySs s If ss hss seSd forced. he is ruined. The courts. anu not the newspapers or the Legislature, must settle the question.
 the operation of the Constitution of the United States, which Is made the su- pren1e law, and cannot pc an invasion
 States S ,bd rights Ths ,ass sstes the poSsr to settle these very questions in the Federal Coart. For many years the question has been considered settled. It is irrevo1ably settled if we are to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
 Every good American believes in cur dual system of government eye tnfant ,ha Let us us Caesars" It Is most pnwise and in- furious in every way to the best inter ests of society to insist that the States have rights in matters which they have deliberately surrendered: No one dreams that these cases can be finally settled except by the Supreme Court them in the regular way, by appeal from the State or Federal court. ac- cordingly as the case is commenced in a lower Federal or State court This with the following quotation from d decision of the Supreme Court In the case of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Company vs. the kota. 176 U. S., 167.
 Few cases are more difficult or per- plexing than those which involve an in- quiry whether the rates prescribed by a State Legislature for the carriage of passengers and freight are reasonable. And yet this difficulty affords no ex- cuSS TOT A Ia1luFS 10 anu solve the questions involved. It has often been said that this Is govern ment of laws. and not of men; and this court in Tick Wo Ts. Hopkins 11S U. $. 356.S6 (30 L ed. 220 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; When We consider the na- ture and theory of our institutions of government the principles upon which they are supposed to rest. and review the history of their development. we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and ar- bftrary power.
 When we recall that. as estimated, over ten thousands of millions of dol lars are invested iu railroad property, the proposition that such a vast amount of property is beyond the protecting clauses of the Constitution. that the owners may be, deprived of it by. the arbitrary enactment of any Legisla- ture, State or National without any right of appeal to the courts, is one which cannot for a moment be toler- ated. Difficult as are the questions. in- Volved in these cases. burdensome as the labor is which they cast upon the courts, no tribunal can hesitate to re-
 spond to the duty of inquiry and pro-
 lection cast upon tt by the Constitu.
 tion. (R. R. Com. cases, 116 U. S. BOT
 sub. nom, Stone vs Farmers l.. and IT. Co; 2s L. ed 636. 6y Sup Ct. Rep.
 334.3Ss. 1191; Dow vs. Beidelman. 12S