The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-18

presses, any opinion now as to what orders 1t should make when the an- swers to the amendment come in. The couIt's action in including other par ties in the restraining orders Is based solely upon the prlma facie case made by the amendment, and in legal effect only made solicitors and sheriffs par ties by name, instead of including them under the designation of other persons, against whom the Court may enforce its pfeeess-though not made parties by name-under Section T25 of the Revised Statutes This was deem- ed farawiser course, in view of the allegations made in the amended bills, than to leave them, or any one else, in doubt as to the scope of the injunc- tions and restraining orders hereto< fore issued in these cases.
 As to the power of the court of equity to make these orders, and the propriety of making them, under the circumstances, the Court does not doubt. Even casual consideration of the facts of the cases before the Court will convince the refiecting layman, as we'll as members of the profession, that these orders in no legal or moral sense Infringe upon the right of the State to administer it's own criminal justice, or interfere in any way with the dis | charge of any duty which a solicitor or sheriff owes to his oath and the law of the land
 Laws Subject to Review.
 Under our system xof Government, the execution of any law affecting the | life. liberty or property of a citizen, is | always subject to the supervision of courts of justice, whenever the citizen questions its validity or construction in the courts in any case affecting him in his personal or property rights. As | long as constitutions like ours endure, which are ordained that the great gem | eral and essential principles of liberty | and free government may be recog- nized and established.' this must be so. | The Executive Department and the Legislative as well, is bound by the l judgments of the courts, as to the ya- lidity of statutes and the construction which the courts put upon legislation and must execute such laws, or refrain from executing them, accordingly as I they are construed by the courts,
 If the courts hold that a statute violates the Constitution, it is the duty of all the other departments of gov ernment to respect their decisions. and to go no further; and so in all other steps in the enforcement of statute. every department is bound to conform to the construction the court puts up- on the statutes, and to enforce them only in the mode and cases where the courts declare 1t to be lawful. The judgment of the court so long as it Is unreversed. is the law of the land, and must be respected. Such has always been the spirit of our institutions. and the custom of all the departments of government. both State and Federal. If this rule be not observed, our sys- tenn of "a Government of laws and not of men would perish from the earth,
 Tt is also the assertion of a mere tru- ism, known to all intelligent men, that a court having Jurisdiction both of the subject matter and of the person, has the right and duty to decide every question arising in the case, to the its duty is fully performed and the Ju- risdiction exhausted,' and that this rule applies alike both in civil and crim- inal cases. Taylor vs. Taintor, 16 Wal lace, 366; Elk Parte Crouch. 112 U. S., IFS; Freeman vs. Howe, 24 Howard. 450.
 Court Judgments Binding.
 "It is also the statement of another truism, always followed by the Su- preme Court of the United States and of every State in the Union, that when the Jurisdiction of q court has attached, | although its proceedings in the subse- quent exercise of its Jurisdiction may 1 abound in error, its judgment and or- ders are binding upon all other courts, |
 
 as weR as private citizens. until set | aside or annulled on appeal. or writ | of error, or other revisory authority. | in the mode provided by the laws of the power that creates the court The remedy, If the court errs, Is by ap- peal, and not by resistance by other departments or other courts, or by law less acts of private individuals.
 "No one denies, or can deny with any | basis of truth. that the eases before | the Court presented not only "a case In | equity arising under the Constitution | and laws, but also 'controversies' be- tween citizens of different States, of which this court had undoubted juris- diction. Even the subtlest casuist who | might be tempted to ueny 1t, must ad- init that this question of Jurisdiction Is | put beyond the pale of controversy, by | un unbroken line of decisions Of the Supreme Court of the United States, | to whose decisions all courts and of- fcers in this land must bow, and which | 1t has been our faith in all the past, l should have the support of all patri- | otic citizens.
 Keeping these truisms and plain | principles in mind. let us inquire what ] is the nature of the cases before the | court, what the clements of the right | contested, and what has heretofore | been decided in them, and thus analyz- |
 
 the orders now asked.
 "The complainants, among others, | filed their bills on the equity side of | the court, against the Railroad Com | mission, and the Attorney General, to test the validity of the statutes regu- | lating passenger fares and freight | rates, and to enjoin the enforcement of | the statute which expelled foreign cor | porations from doing any domestic l business here, for filing its bill in this | court, as it had a right to do under | the Constitution of the United States | and of the State as well. to test the | reasonableness of the rates.
 "This court, as it was specially au- thorized to do by the State statute, as well as required by well-settled prin- ciples of equity. suspended the opera tioh of the rate statutes upon exacting | bond to make good any damage and to |