The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-01
STATES RIGHTS NOT INVOLVED .a The Reign of tke Consultation s xnOolosd in Raoad Litigation.

1 of the adverse party are amply se-
 cured by the exaction of bond, and the
 the operation of the rate law is not sus- J.
 pended. is to insist that whatever the
 legislature decrees shali be the law. and ! that 2 court under no circumstances,
 has any authority to interfere with 1t pending final decree. No one need
 be told. If court con finally annul .
 statute. that 1t may. pending investiga-
 in the case as will properly conserve the rights of the parties pending the final decree. It is a maxim in our jurispru-
 aence: ssa that the court which first ob-
 CT to decide every question which can | arise in it. that no other court can de- termine ssuch matters. and that the
 lowed to proceed with it without inter
 ference from any other court. except by the hiehsr tribunals of the power
 lnexorabiy enforced the rule as abso-
 luteiy esscntia! to the peace and good It is conceded that courts of equity
 may stop the operation of rate laws. nnd prevent any civil penalties; but; s .nSs S o.Ssn .op pundsr s.s tional. in order to conserve the rights
 of the parties pending such investisa-
 defeat the. civil righfs which the court
 his risht coG,d ss ihs asalPs Rs'. a.tss ss
 If . statute is unconstitutional, it is no law. It is as though. 1t had never been. The highest courts. alike of the States and of the United States. rights are sought to be invaded by the
 that that q court of S9uity. in a proper case
 whets.r ]. viii do s.ss .so or 9r1sa not depends upon whether the party has any other .adeauate remedy. If a sin
 gle suit wiil settle the risht. the court
 defense may as well be made in the criminal court as elsewhere; if. on the other hand. | criminal suit will not fi-
 .s S dsnssr ssst: tss ssns sfas ans ai g.fy
 jured. and will be forced to submit to
 q wrong: by . multiplicity of prosecu-
 right depends. 2 court of equity will always stop such prosecutions, pending
 final decree. The legislature cannot
 ing criminal penalties. to the doing of Alabama. or elsewhere. that a court of equity canot enjoin prosecutions un-
 ation while the facts are heiTx .as-
 certained upon which its validity de- pends 11 trreparable injury may result in the enforcement of the statute in the
 meanwhile. In the case of the Port of
 Mobile. s4 Ala. 115. it. was held. ''rhe
 mere fact that an act is criminal. does not divest Jurisdiction to prevent 1t by injunction, if 1t also be a violation of property rights and the party aggriev- ed has no other adequate remedy for the prevention of irreparable injury which
 will result from the failure or inabil- right" In that case, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against criminal prosecutions under . void or- dinance: In Storey's Equity Jurispru- dence. Vol. ?. Section s2s. 1t is said:
 If a court of equity did not interfere great failure of justice in the country" The Supreme court of the United States has most emphatically upheld the power of courts of equity to enjoin the enforcement of a criminal statute of state. where 1t was essential to prevent the unlawful destruction of a property right, and preserve the Jurisdiction in the court which became possessed of the case.
 21s. the Supreme court said: It would
 seem that if there were Jurisdiction in
 a court of equity to enjoin the inva- sion of property rights through the instrumentality Of an unconstitutional
 law. that Jurisdiction would not be busted by the fact that the State had
 chosen to assert its power to enforce such law by indictment or other crim-
 L. i R. c.. Equity, 5s1-5ss." "'''' In Prout V. Starr. 18S U. S. 544, it
 was objected by the attorney general of Nebraska: that the attorney gen. eral of state cannot be restrained by