The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-01

injunction of . United states court from enforcing the criminal laws of State" The supreme court answered: charged with duties in the enforce ment of the statutes sought to be re- strained. and the purpose 0f the in1unc- , ton was to prevent him from collect Further s ne on, the court said. "ths object of the supplemental btll was to restrain the attorney general from attempting to transfer the very matters that stood for judgment in theIederal court to latter. such course might bring about conflict between those courts. and create tho ,confusion 90 often de- precated by this court Peck Y Jen- smith. Is Howard. zs5. The juri.dic- ton of the circuit court could not be defeated or impaired by the inetitu- quent proceedings. whether civil or criminal involving the same legal question in the State court. Harkrad- der V: Wadley. 172 U: s. iAs. s 14l, 1t IS said: It is aAso urged by the defendants in error that court oi equity will not entosn the proeecu- tion of a criminal case ;put as we nave seen, the plaintiff in error in this case had acquired property rights. which, by the eforcement of the ordinance in question, would be destroyed or rem dered worthless. It is well settled, that ed, unlawful interference by criminal proceedings under void law or or. dinance may be reached and controlled by a decree of court of equity:
 States has decided that the proper way to settle the reasonableness of rate regulations is by a suit in court or equity agalnst the state authorities, the A. kt4l, public and the parties before the court. Our state has enacted this equity rule into statute and declared the Railroad Commission IS the proper ticket or freight agent. for charging greater passenger and freight rates than the statute Rrescribes, would not settle anything. The reasonableness or each particular case. One jury might hold the law reasonable ana convict the freight or ticket agent; another jury in another court might hold the Nobody would know what the law is. The public would be left In uncertain ty and doubt and endless confusion l, would result. The carrier would pc rates fixed by the statute. although their operation might absolutely de- stroy his rights while he was contend ing for them, and although he ilnai!y succeeded In naVln8 tHe eIosuso "~ judged unconstitutional.
 Whether person is deprived or hls property without due process Of law is not local question. It cannot pc contracted into local question untll the constitution of the United states is repealed. The fact that the case arises under a freigh statute does not take it without the operation or Sns constitution. The operation of the su- preme law of the land cannot be yio- iation of any right of the State. The principle involved in the courts oeaA- ing with these rate cases reach out Tar beyond rates and railroads and lnvoive the rights and liberties of every citi- zen to apply to the courts of our com mon country if they so desire, for the protection of rights which the consti- tution of the United States safeguards for all sorts and conditions of men. ana under all circumstances.
 Unless it be a crime for the Cniteo states to have courts in Alabama, ana for those courts to administer the iaw' in cases properly brought before them' no one can complain with any 5usti- fication whatever that there is med ding with our local affairs. because the Federal court investigates. Just as the State court would have to do had the case been brought there, an alleged deprivation of persons property straining vthe enforcement of the sta tute. while it is getting the facts which determfne the validity of the law, upon the exaction of bond to protect tne opposite party if the statute be nelo constitutional. To war upon the court for doing that. is to assail It Tor dolns its duty and to denounce the constito- tion and laws which put the court here and gave it duties to perform.
 student of Our Institutions.