The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-23
.acoMn AND LET US REASON TO-
 GETHER.,

uation in Alabama there is general consensus of opinion In at least two particulars. first that it is unfortunate and injurious both to the people and | the railroads; second, that the situation cannot be cleared up by clamor. threats. passion or fanaticism. It is a time for reason to assert its sway and
 to insist that whatever settlement is reached shall be under the law. and pursuant to the established course of the law. The people. themselves. have created the constitutions and laws un- der which they live, and established l the courts for their interpretation and ! application, and 1t would be a refiec- ton upon our intelligence and .civiliza- ton to admit that they are inadequate I to the full. just and orderly settlement of all controversies involving life, lib- erty or property; to insist otherwise is to invite anarchy and chaos. 1 Tn view of the condition now com fronting us it is not necessary to stop 1 to inquire what brought it about. but 1t is better to set about inquiring how 1t may be removed. There Is a very general and doubtless just belief that the long continued abuses and arbi- trary practices of the railroad compa- nies. have brought down upon them I selves the storm now breaking over them; that they are now, after their | long sowing of the wind. according to the natural course. reaping the terri l ble whirlwind. But what thenf Shall the state join forces with the whirl- | wind to destroy them? Wonld that be wise? Can the state afford to destroy who have done so much in the past and are capable of doing so much in the | future for its industrial development? 1 Or shall it so hamper or clog these ser-
 wants as to impair their usefulness to | 1t? We cannot suppose that those who have shaped the States policy, and are | undertaking to carry it into effect, have any such purpose in view, but are influenced by honest and patriotic mo- there are some demagogues who are attempting to selze upon the occasion for their selfish, personal ends.
 Conceding to the State officials charged with the duty of carrying into 1 effect the recent railroad legislation
 sincere and patriotic motives. never theless the responsibility of their posi-
 tions charges them with the duty of i recognizing and enforcing all law of force within the State and not these particular laws to the exclusion of all other. Now the railroad companies contend that the Constitution and laws of the United States are of force in | Alabama, and no one can gainsay it; and they further insist that the recent
 railroad legislation in Alabama deprives them of rights and privileges guaran- teed by the Federal Constitution, and
 also deprives them of their property | for the use of the public without just compensation and without due process of law However much the State au-
 thorities and people of the State may differ from them in that view, and be- 1ieve the contrary. nevertheless it is undoubtedly a fact that the railroad companies have been able to make such
 a showing to a Federal Court in Ala bama on that subject, as that The
 court felt obliged to enjoin. and did
 enjoin. the execution of some of these
 laws. and this was without any resist ance on the part of those acting for the State, and there has not up to this
 time been any motion to the court to dissolve the injunction. or other effort
 to convince the court that 1t was in error.
 The validity of the courts action de-
 bends upon one question-did it have
 jurisdiction in the premises? If not
 then its action is void-if it did. its
 action is not void even if 1t were er-
 roneous. Let us concede to the State
 authorities an honest. sincere belief
 that the action of the Federal Court is
 void; shall we any the less concede that
 the railroad authorities are honest in
 the belief that the recent State legisla- ton is void. and that destructive leg
 islation calls for constructive or pre-
 servative Jurisprudence? But who is
 to say whether or not the legislative
 or judicial action is void? Is that to
 be determined by the party against
 whom the judgment was rendered? It is matter of common knowledge that the unsuccessful litigant generally be-
 lieves that the judgment obtained
 against him is erroneous or void What then? Shall he say will not regard
 it, or submit to it? Were that permit
 ted to lltigants, the courts were better
 abolished Can the State. who above all litigants should set the example of obedience to law and respect for the courts, afford to assume that attitude? :?
 For all practical purposes it is a liti- l gant in these cases. But suppose it
 does would the question of Federal ju- ! risdfction be thereby settled? Not at