New-York tribune., 1907-11-29
THE 4TAR4ffA TN,TT-ECTTON


The worst fears of the Alabama Legislature
have been swiftly realized. All of Governor
Corners niunction-pruof laws have been en-
Joined. and there seems TO be nothing for the
Governor to do but confess defeat call an
other session. The promptness with which this
restraint applied must prove great dis
appointment to all wlo have believed that
way might be devised to bar corporations from
direct recourse to the federal courts in testing
the constitutiOnality Of state laws. The Conner
legislation represented the best thought of the
anti-injunctionists. Some time ago Governors
Conner. Glenn and Hoke Smith held a conference
At which, we informed, the state rights
leaders from Georgia and North Carolina gave
advice on the question of framing laws that
could not be got before United States Judge.
Not only this. but Attorney General CARRIER Of
Alabama attended the national conference of
attorneys general last summer Mt ST Louis. where
fifteen men who had had some experience in
dealing with the problem put their heads to-
gether and suggested ingenious ways Of draw
ing statutes the enforcement of which could
not be enjOined. Consequently. when the extra
session began. .ays The Montgomery Adver-
tiser" the administration was in possession Of
"a brand new set of IDEAS on the railroad ques-
'tiOn, most Of them dealing with means TO pre-
went the granting of iniunctions. Some of the
Minnesota, some from Arkansas. some from
Indiana. In short. the ideas came from every
state in which there had been agitation
against the railroads. The newest and most
original device to render the laws injunction
proof was to make no state officer specifically
responsible for their enforcement. That func-
tion taken away from the Railroad Com
mission and the Attorney General. and the en-
forcement of the laws made to depend upon
suits by citizens passengers or shippers it being
apparently supposed that no injunction could be
made broad enough to prevent citizens suits.
Penal provisions were freely put into the acts.
on the theory that this would force the courts
to treat them as criminal laws and not subject
to injunction. the enforcement Of some Of them
apparently involving the criminal prosecution
of railroad freight and passenger agents
Judge Jones has tied up all this legislation
with blanket injunction directed at citizens in
general. and so the whole question Of the limits
and proper use of the injunction process re
mains exactly where il was a matter for ad-
iudication by the United States Supreme Court.
There is seemly attitude for state officials
who resent the enjoinment of state laws to take
and that is to wait until some of the many
suits now pending in which the use of the in
junction process is at issue have been de
termined There is room for dispute among
fair minded men whether the policy Of the fed
eral courts toward regulative laws should be to
compel the state pri0ri TO show the reason
abeness Of is enactments in order TO be per-
mitted 10 enforce them. to compel the cor
poration affected TO prove pOStertoyi the
confiscatory character of the legislation In order
TO have II set aside. But the conduct Of Gov
ernor Conner only goes to illustrate the need
Of the injunction. Legislation passed as his
was. and in the spirit in which his was. deserves
to be eniOined