The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-08-01
TO- RESIST ORDER
OF LOWER COURT.
Believed That Virginia Will.
'rl1us Take Rate Case
Up Sooner
WILL co TO SUPREME COURT
Under Tcr1,; OF Constitution
Judge Pritcl1ard's Jurisdie-
tiop IS Denied.
ny wA1uIGn lsn MARp- nAnnIs.

= b
NAsiIiNCTcN. G.. ,lulY 3D.
While sentiment. so far as developed
here outside Of strictly Official circles
is overwhelmingly With virginia and
North Carolina in their fight with the
Federal courts over the enforcement
OF passenger rate legislation and or
dcrs, and th < without reference to the
Justice Of the order or act OF the LIZ
isiaturc. there is doubt entertained
as to the wisdom and correctness OF
the position taken by the State nu-
thoritics Of North Carolina, and the
Corpora ton Commission Of Virginia at
the outset
A distinguished lawyer of this city
said to-day that the Corporation Com
mission OF Virginia. in his opinion
should have denied from the start the
authority Of Judge Prtchard to hale
1t into court at Asheville when the
motion for a permanent Injunction
against the commissions publishing
< tile two-cent fare order was argued.
In the same way, North Carolina.
through her officials, should have OBJ
tanned ut once an order from the bu-
prcmc Court, restraining Judge Pritch-
ards court from taking Jurisdiction.
and compelling the cases against the
railroad agents to be heard in the SUI
preme Court Of the United States
This view Is based on section 2. OF Ar
ticle Ill, OF the Federal Constitution,
which says:
In all cases affecting ambassadors.
other public ministers and consuls,
and those6in which a State shall be q
party, the Supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction"
The view is taken by the lawyer
mentioned above that the cases in
North Carolina were in effect cases
against the State He contends that
there Is not the slightest doubt that
the case against the Corporation Com
mission is a case against the State OF
Virginia. and that the Supreme Court
OF the United States has original ju-
risdlction, and sole jurisdictions.
According to this view the Virginia
Corporation Commission would have
been justified in simply ignoring the
proceedings in the lower Federal
court and in case Judge PrItchard's &.
narshals sought to enforce the order
restraining the commission from pub
fishing It's order for lower rates. to
rave got an order from one of the
Justices Of the Supreme Court, re-
straining the inferior Judge from FUR
ther proceeding on the ground that
ne was without jurisdiction.
Decided Cnsch Cited.
Several Federal cases appear 10 sus-
tain the view outlined. In Ames VS.
Kansas, IL y. S.. Mr.. Chief Justice
Waite, delivering the opinion Of the
court, said:
With respect to States, 1t is pro-
y vided that the Jurisdiction should be
eacluflve IN all controversies OF a civil
nature where a State was q party. ex-
csot between a State and It's citi-
zens. and except, also. between State
and citizens OF other, States. or aliens.
IN which latter case its jurisdiction
should be original, but not exclusive.
nus the original jurisdiction of the
supreme Court was made concurrent
WITH any other court to which turis-
diction might be given In suits be-
tween State and citizens OF other
States, or aliens.
No Jurisdiction was given in sucn
gases 70 any. other court OF the United
Enactment Cor the judiciary Act OF
1850, therefore. was to give the Su-
preme Court exclusive Original jurls.
diction In suits begun against state
State to sue for 4.self in any tribunal
that could entertain its CASE
In another place In the same case
Chief Justice Waite says:
The judiciary Act was passed on
the 24th day OF September. 1889, and
at the April term. 1898, the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the Dis.
was found against Ravara. consul
from Genoa. for a misd emeanor n
sending anonymous. and threatening
letters to the British minister an6
others. with a view to. extort money
Objection was made to the Jurisdiction
for the reason that the exclusive cog
nizance OF the case belonged to the
thought that. for obvious reasons OF
1cal character OF the defendant The
court was held by Wilson and 1redell
4 Supreme Court Justices. and Peters. the
District Judge. Mr.. Justice Wilson
who had been member NJ the con.
ventlon that framed the Constitution
was Of the opinion that although thu
Constitution rests in the Supreme conr
an original jurisdiction in cases Ike
the present. it does not preclude thu
Legislature from exercising. the nowee'
Of vestirg concurrent jurisdiction II
such inferior courts as miFht bv Law
be established Mr.. Justice Iredel
though that for obvious reasons o
public policv. the Constitution intende,
4 TO vest exclusive jurisdiction in thu
Supreme Court anon all questions re.
lating to the public agents of foreiEr
agents. Besides. the context of tn
judiciary article of the Constitution
seems fairly to Justify the interpreta
.