The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-09-26
A NEW REFORM.

The attitude of federal courts toward
state laws promises to become a ques-
ton of national Importance. The dis
position Of some federal judges to en-
join the operation of state statutes at
the request of corporations has brought
forth a great amount Of discussion since
the clash in North Carolina, and now
the Republican state convention in Ne
braska has adopted the following:
We favor the enactment of fed
| eral law and, If necessary, amendment
to the federal constitution which VIII
forbid the federal courts from issuing
writs OF injunction against state officers
charged by law with the enforcement OF
state statutes"
There are. of course, two sides to this
question. Heretofore the federal courts
have been inclined to see only the cor
poration side. and that is what has
brought out this protest. When a cor
poration has asserted that a law was
unjust to it, some federal judge has
usually been ready to step in and en-
join the law temporarily, losing sight of
the fact that If the corporation is wrong
the courts action is unjust to the pub
lie.
For instance. in contesting the reduc-
ton of transportation rates the rail-
roads usually assert that such reduc-
tions are in violation Of the federal con-
stitution in that they deprive the rail-
roads of their property without due
process of law. But on the other hand,
if the reduced rates are really fair. the
private individual who is compelled By
the railroads and by the courts to pay
more is also robbed of his property
without due process of law. This is the
point the federal courts sometimes lose
sight of.
When a legislature passes a law or d
public board makes an order, it should
be considered fair and legal until
proven otherwise, and if the railroads
wish to hold such an order or law in
allegiance they should be compelled to
protect each individual from loss in case
their contention should be found to be
wrong. This would manifestly be prac- |
tically impossible if it were necessary
in the two-cent fare cases, for in
stance-to give a bond to each person
to whom a passenger ticket was sold |
covering the excess charged. Possibly |
some other method could be devised, !
perhaps by the railroad giving bond |
to the state large enough to cover the |
aggregate of all excess charges, and |
then compelling tnem 10 give receipt |
with each ticket for TIE excess charged.
which receipts should act as checks
upon the bond in case the state won.
This would protect the public but it
would doubtless be a great amount of
trouble and lead to complications.
Judge Mcpherson took a sensible ac-
tiors in the rate controversy in Missouri,
when he suggested that the railroads
try the new rate law and find out by
practical experiment If it is conhscatory
before they ask to have the law enjoin-
ed. If more federal judges were dis
posed TO follow Judge McPherson's &C
ton. there would be less agitation along
the line of the Nebraska resolution.
Possibly the Nebraska Republicans
are a trif1e radical. Perhaps there |
should be some proviso whereby the |
federal courts could be allowed to en-
join state laws If the public were duly |
protected from loss in case the law |
should prove valid. But the Nebraska
resolution shows the temper of the |
public, and perhaps a few federal judges
will not be so brash in the future about |
setting aside laws passed in the interest |
Of the people, just because some cor
0oratiors ask them to do so.