The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-08-19

train men whose duties frequently re- late alike to domestic and interstate comnnerce. can be taken from the trains at every station, and trains hindered and delayed and the lives of travellers, both state and interstate imperiled by the resulting confusion, in the move ment of opposing trains, and the malls of the United States and interstate com merce be delayed and interfered with by such constant arrests, and yet never theless there is no power in this land of ours which can lawfully stretch out its arm, and stay the irreparable in Jury which would result from such state of things to the thousands or employees. and thousands of passengers and shippers, and to public and private interests alike, simply because, the statute calls the eXacting of a partic- ular charge which statute is suspended, a crime? And that too when the req soma beness of the charge which Is the alleged element of the criminal act, IS before the court having undoubted jur- isdiction to decide whether it Is right or wrong? And that too when the court has suspended the operation Of the statute upon whose violation the all legged crime is based in accordance With the laws of the state and under the equity power of the courts of the United States, and which court also has the undoubted right to stay the operation of the statute until it can be ascertained whether it is valid or not? Undoubtedly the court here has the power to determine these questions, but whether or not 1t has it in the present posture of the case, 1t Is for this court to determine, and not for executive officers to determine. This principle is emphatically enunciated in the lynching cases at Chattanooga as reported in the case of the United States vs. Shpp, 203 U. s. b72, where the supreme court declared, whether 1t had jurisdiction or not, 1t was for the court to determine, and that whilo 1t was Investigating, persons who un- dertook to violate it's process were guilty of a contempt. To quote Justice Story, If courts of equity did not interfere in cases of this sort, there would be a failure of justice in this country" Story Ed. Jur. section BPS.
 Fortunately for the public and private interests concerned, the pathway of the court of equity in such a case as this has been beaten plain by text writers the de- csions of many of the highest courts of the state and by repeated adjudications of the supreme court of the United States. A court of equity has the undoubted pow CT to restrain by injunction the institu- tion of criminal proceedings when they are instituted or threatened, under color of an invalid statute, or without any warrant in law, for the purpose of con- polling the relnqulshment of a property right. See:
 Reagan vs. Trust Co.,, 154 L. s. S62.
 Smith vs. Ames, 169 U. S., 466
 Mississippi railroad commission vs. H. linois Central Railroad Co.,, 20S |. S., 34l.
 Prout ys. Starr, 1SS |. S., 537
 Davis, etc. vs Los Angeles, 1S9, Y. S., 2l7.
 Dobbins vs. Los Angeles, 195 U. S.. 223,
 Southern Express Co. vs. Mayor of Ens' ley, 116 Fed. Rep 756,
 City vs. Peckham, 11S Fed. Rep. S9a
 Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. vs Port of Mobile S3 Ala, 115.
 South and North Alabama Railroad Go. vs. City Council, S4 Ala. 127.
 Springhead Spinning Co. vs. Riley, l.. R., Eq. 5SS.
 Osborne vs. |. s. Bank Wheaton, '3S-
 Platte vs. Lee, 29 Pacific Reporter, 10S6.
 City of Atlanta vs. Gate City Gas Light Co.,, T Ga, 196.
 Mayor of Baltimore vs. Radecke, AZ Md, 21S.
 Quintini vs. Bay St Louis, 64 Miss. 4S3.
 Smith vs. Bangs, 15 H., S99
 Milwaukee F.. R. l.. Co. vs. Brady. loS Wis, 461.
 See also vicksburg Water Works Cc vs Vicksburg, 1S5 U. S.. S.
 The supreme court of the United states has spoken in no uncertain terms on this subject. It may be we'll however, to quote some of it's utteranees. In Davis Vs. Los Angeles, 1s9 |. S., Supra, 1t said Tt would seem if there were Jurisdiction in A hourt of equity to enjoin the invasion of property rights, through the instrn- mentality of an unconstitutional law, that the jurisdiction could not be busted by the fact that the state had chosen to as- sert its power to enforce the statute by indictment or oher criminil proceeding. Springhead Spinning Go. vs Riley, L. R., 6 Ed 55l, 55S." In the case thus cited