The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1907-08-18
ATTITUDE OF THE |. AND N.
IN ALABAMA SET FORTH


aside its sovereignty.
Suspension of Rates.
By the first restraining order made
by the court the rates fixed by the
several statutes of Alabama were
suspended, and since that time there
has been no such rates in force, and
the railroad by charging greater rates
IS, therefore, violating no law. Had
the railroad contented itself with OBJ
tanning a suspension of rates this
would probably have been technically
sufficient, for as no rates would have
been in force no offense would have
been committed by ignoring such
rates, and any effort to enforce the
rates would probably have subjected
the prosecuting officers to proceed
ings for contempt of the federal court
and also made them and the arrest
ing officers liable to the party arrest
ed and prosecuted
Ampllfied Injunction.
This probably would not have been
understood by the prosecuting and
arresting officers throughout the
state without careful study of the
subject, which they could not be ex-
pected to give, and the railroad
therefore, thought it both wiser and
fairer to sue out an injunction against
the railroad commission, the attorney
general and all other persons fe
straining them from enforcing these
rates. This it thought at the time
would be sufficient to put all parties
interesed upon proper notice; but af-
| ter this was done it became mani
fest from numerous articles and in
terviews in thep ress, that it was not
understood that the existing restrain
ing order was binding upon the prose-
cutting and aresting officers. Fearing
! that this misunderstanding might
| give rise to unnecessary conflicts oe-
| tween the state and federal courts,
the railroad thought it wiser and fair
er to set this misunderstanding at
rest by having the restraining order
and Injunction so extended as to in
clUde by express language the prose
cutting and arresting officers: and it
| therefore amended its bill so rs &C
make them parties to the eUit, and so
as to enjoin them from arresting Or
prosecuting the railroad, IFS officers,
agents or servants upon any charge
Of having demanded and received a
greater rate. for freight or passengers
than that prescribed by the several
acts of Alabama, ....-.
Rule and Exception.
1t is a general rule that a court
Of equity has no jurisdiction to en-
join criminal prosecution. but there
are exceptions to this rule that are
everywhere recognized and fully es-
tablished by decisions both of the SUI
preme court of the United States and
the supreme courts of several of the
states Of the United States, includ
ing Alabama; and one of these ex
ceptiOnS is, that where a criminal
prosecution involves, as it does il
this case, the deprivation Of a person
Of large property interests and +he
law under which the prosecution is
threatened rs alleged to be unconsti
tutiOnal and void, or upon the facts
it may be held to be unconstitutional
the courts will, for the purpose #
protecting such property interests
enjoin the criminaf prosecutions.
Another exception is that where be
fore the cOmmencc rleut of 4 prose
cution, a court Of equity has taker
Jurisdiction of the sUbicct-matter in
controversy. and the effect of the
prosecution will be to interefcr with
|
parties under the orders of the court
taking such jurisdiction, tn cour
will by Injunction protect the parties
from being deprived by crimina
prosecutions of the fruit of its adjudi
cation. Both of these exceptions are
involved in the present case. The
arrests and prosecutions of the rail
roads officers, agents and servants
which has been threatened, would be
so numerous and world so entirely
prevent the performance of their re
spective duties as to make it impOS
Sible for the railroad to operate with
out cOneceding the contention of the
defendants in the cause, and thereby
surrendering a large portion of the
| benefits that it would otherwise de
rive from the protection of the court
pending the litigation, and giving III
a large amount of money to which il
is justly entitled, provided it is right
in its contention.
The railroad believes that since
the effect of the orders of the fedora
court has been made plain by the
last amendment to its bill there viii
be no conflict between the fedora
and states courts, and that the right:
iof the railroad and of the public will
be fully protected by an orderly pro
ceeding in the court in which the
cause is pending. This, at least, j:
what it hopes for and expects.
We do not believe that any good
citizen would care to deprive the rail
roads of the rights that are guaran
teed to every citizen Of the United
States by both the federal and state
constitution and laws to enforce its
rights in the courts of the county. II
these rights can be denied to railroads
they can and will when occasion
arises be denied to individuals.