The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-07-23

Of North Carolina when Its citizens are
prohibited by the acts OF tho Lesisla-
ture from asserting any right guaran-
teed to them by the Constitution OF
the United States.
Suits OF this character have been
brought in different States I, Of the
Union, and in every instance the Fed
eral courts have proceeded to deter
mine the questions involved without
interference, hindrance or delay bE
Of sucn States. The equal protection
zen Of the United States. 1 shall EN-.
ploy an means within the power Of
fray invoke the jurisdiction of this
court such rights to the fullest extent
OF the law. II the law Is construed
there can be no. conflict of jurisdiction
Between the State courts and the
courts OF the United States Much has
been court sa q eo rfgafa to the power "
% Dobbins vs.. Los Angeles 1875 U. S.
"a. MI. Justice Day, delivering the
opinion OF the court, said in discussing
shis pt ass OF the squestion: IT is well
be destroyed. unlawful Interference by
Or ordll,unce may be reached and
equity. Davis and Forman Manufac-
turing Company VS. Los Angeles. lS9
u..s. 201-1s. and cases there cited.
In this instance the Federal court
has not been the aggressor. but mas
simply adopted the regular practice and
procedure. which has been approved by
the Supreme Court of the United States
the court is not inclined to do any
thing that will produce an nnseemly
conflict, nevertheless. 1t is incumbent
upon it to protect the rights of parties
to this controversy and the dignity and
authority Of this court and this cannot
be accomplished without preserving TO
the fullest extent the Jurisdiction OF
the court in determining the. question
which has been submitted to 1t LOT
confederation
stntes' Rights Not In Question.
If in pursuing the usual and We'll
DEFINED practice and procedure IN sven
cases, with the sole view OF MAINTAIN
ing the jurisdiction Of this court, at
any stage of the proceeding. confiet
not shall not evade the responsi-
I the presiding oincer- Of this court,
Much has been said about the sover-
does not arise in this controversy;
This court. having assumed ourisalcttpn y
| of the subject matter inVolved IN tne
original suit. wherein the railroad coH ~
Epanies are compliments and the raj y
ffendants. the real question is as 10
whather this court shall be denied full
and complete jurisdiction Of the SUD
iject matter at issue In that suit.
Excludes Idea of Coniits.
II the contention, of counsel repre- r :
5he sIa5s Of
nv the multiplication Of criminal pros.
Iecutions in the State courts agains'
iployes to such an extent as to iinall5
Place Ii IN position where NAN Van
a hsn Is ann ss n hs Grso
the complainant viii be denied right
(which IS guaranteed TO It BY the Con- Co
stitution@ Of the United States. This
well-estaDlished rules ofsjudicia l proce.
}dure, and does, not commend itself te
this or any court sitting as a cour,
LOT equity. It excludes the idea q
FAMILY i1Ti sdict between cous' q concurrent
Suppose complainant had instituted
its suit in the State court instead o. o.
Ihad granted an Injunction in pursu.
lance OF the laws Of the State, could
IT be seriously commended that the
STATE court, after having taken iuris,
tine civil action, thus instituted, woule
permit the complainant to be subjected
70 criminal prosecutions and suits. fol
ties 'ns h shs stafats Pfnd
ton, and befo pS'oen there p nc eo az
be an ascertainment ass to tn,
Original suit? The State court
lunder such circumstances would un
4 doubtedly preserve the rights OF Tn,
! parties until the final hearing, an,
10 ~ IA f>Nt a IL I,
d State.
Notwithstanding this, We are con
4 fronted with an attempt on the par
I der this court powerless to grant tn
same relief that would be granted a
a. matter Of course In another cour
of concurrent jurisdiction.
The law provides that in all case
y where the Federal courts have concur
rent jurisdiction with the State courts
& that such courts shall have power an
that may come before such tribunal
( and to protect the rights OF litignnt
Ito the same extent as that OF til
\ State courts.
same. manner as other suits are insti
tuted, and involving, as they do, tn
q validity Of statute of North Caroline
n II necessarily slOll0WS tnattf3l matter
a connected With the en- Increment OF sue
4 statute, during the tendency az tina
suit. ARE under the control and juris
|diction of the court wherein til
e Questions involved are bang litigatet
The court In the original suit haytn
assumed jurisdiction Of the question
4 lat issue in that controversy. and hay
X Ing entered decree wherein, amol,
Iotner things. the complainant ana Il
lagents We're directed to employ certai
g means and do certain things In rsspee
j Ito the sale OF tickets during thu per
|dency Of that suit, the court thereb
i MANAGEMENT OF the business of I'll
Z complainant in so far as intrastat
( Transportation Is concerned, in til
same manner as II the court had ar
POINTED & receiver OF Tho property
complainant, AS a general rule til
Circuit Courts OF the United States nj
q Issue the writ Of habeas corpus i
cases where persons are indicted an
imprisoned in pursuance OF statu,
OF a State, ard It NUT be remelnhere
y that this Is not an attnmpt on the va,
{ of the State to enforce n law whic
has for Ats object the preser ration 4
peace, protection OF the morals or II
general w lfare OF the public. ana <,
cannot be insisted that these prosec,
ltions are necessaryst to promote the we
fare of the public In View Of the "a,
that this court HAS amply protectf