The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-12-10

Federal court. when considering the
identical question presented in TINS
case. that IL would be impossible 10
decide whether the reduction OF = fa't
viii be c~onfscatory III the absence OK
an actual test ~ the same. The court
held that whether IL would be 50 or
not vas speculative and mere guess
work and that the testimony Of an
ordinary business man, expressing his
opinion. or even n rail@a- experts
also giving opinions and illustrating
them BY the use Of many figures based
upon Dast experience, was not salts
factory and did not relieve the doubt
and uncertainty sufficiently 70 war
rant the issuing ~ q preliminary IN
junction. Railway Company v
Hadley. 155 Fed. Rep. at p rs. III
this case. the reports OF the defendant
to the corporation commission do not
tend TO diminish the uncertainty as 70
what effect the lower rate VIII nave
upon the Defendants income. but
rather to increase It 1t would be
natural 10 suppose that a lower rate
would cause increased travel and.
while additional facilities must be pro-
vided for IL. the relative increase OF
the cost Of the latter and Of the re-
enumeration from the natural increase
in passenger traffic cannot re de
termined with any degree of certainty
except by actual trial. We have
carefully examined the opinion of the
Federal court in this matter and have
not been convinced thereby that we
nave enormously decided arv OF the
questions growing out Of the equity
suit. We refer especially 10 ex parte
Wood. 155 Fed. Rep. 100. in which the
petitioner. a ticket agent of the de-
PENDANT, who applied for the writ Of
habeas corpus, was granted the writ
and then discharged for a violation of
the Act of 1907. The decision is
hgGaH t1ranu tho Ground that Tho Sale
Of tickets was AN act done in pur-
suance of an order, process or decree
of a Court of the United States or
Judge thereof" under Rev. Statutes of
Y. s, section 75s g. s. Comp.
Statutes. .. 592). This is givinga a
very broad and liberal construction to
that section. Can it mean that the
criminal laws of a State shall be suS-
pended by the order of a single Fed
eral judge, even if they conflict with
it? We cannot give our assent to
Uch a construction, and we are quite
sure that our chief justice did not in
tend to sanction it in the quotation
made by the learned Circuit Judge in
ex parte Wood from State v. Boone,
1872 n. G. 1108. He vas speaking
there of a duty enioined by a valid
Federal law not being punishable by
the State as a crime, and not merely
of n imposed by the order of a Fed
eral judge. But it is unnecessary to
continue this comment any further,
as the defendants in the equity suit
must avail themselves of any errone-
Gus ruling therein by exception and
an appeal from the decree entered in
that suit at the final hearing. We do
not think. upon the question of the
Jurisdiction of the Federal court, that
Mfg. Co ". Los Angeles, 189 U. S.
207, and Dobbins Y. Los Angeles,
1875 z. s. 241. which are cited in ex
parte Wood, bear any analogy
to the equity suit wherein the order
of injunction was issued, under which
Wood is alleged to have been acting
when he sold the tickets. In the form
Brown clearly distinguish. the two
classes of cases from each other. The
State in this proceeding is enforcing
her criminal laws.
1t must not be understood by what
we nave said. that we are criticising
the decision of the Fedora Court but
merely examining the grounds and
reasons upon which it rests. with q
view of determining whether it should
ave any influence upon our conciU-
sion in this case. We always discuss
respectfully the decisions of other
courts, however much we may dis
agree with them. n it is our pleas
ure, as well as our duty to do so, for
any other course would be most I'M
seemly.
our opinion is that the Federal Court
had no jurisdiction to enioin the find
ing and prosecution of his Indictment,
and that the suit in that court Is
virtually one against the State within
the meaning and intent of the
Eleventh Amendment to the Constitu-
ton of the United States. But il is
clear that as no criminal offence is al
legged in the Indictment. there is moth
ing for us to do but to arrest the
judgment.
JUDGMENT ARRESTED.