The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-18

the irreparable injury which would re- suit from such state of things to the | thousands of employees. and thousands of passengers and shippers and to pub- lie and private interests alike, simply because the statute calls the exactinR | of particular charge which statute Is | suspended. a crimo7
 | And that too, when the reasonable | ness of the charge which is the alleg- ed element of the criminal act, is be- l fore the court having undoubted ju- | risdiction to decide whether 1t 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 | equity power oftthe courts Of the Unit | ed States: and which court also has the undoubted right to stay the operation of the statute unil 1t can be ascertain l ed whether 1t is valid or not7 Undoubtedly the court nere has the power to determine these questions, but whether or not it has it In the present posture of the case, it Is Tor this courr to determine. and not for the executive officers to determine. This principle Is emphatically enunciated in the lynching cases at Chattanooga, as re- ported in the case of the United States V. Shipp, 203 U. g.. STE, wnere the Su-
 
 Jurisdiction or not 1t was for the court to determine. and that while 1t was Investigating. persons wrlo undertook to violate it's process were guilty of contempt. To quote Justice Story: If the courts of equity did not interfere in cases of this sort. there would be great failure of justice In this country Story Ed. Jur, s2s.
 Pathway Made Plain.
 "Fortunately for the public and pri- vate interests concerned, the pathway of the court of equity in such a case as this has been beaten py text writers, the decisions of many or the highest courts of the State, and by repeated ad- indications of the Supreme Court of the United States.
 "A court of equity has the undoubted power to restrain by injunction the in- stitution 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 compelling the relinduishment of a property right.
 ''see: Reagan vs. Trust Co. 154 U. s.. 362 ;Smyth vs. Ames, 16e U. g., 466; Mississippi Railroad Commission vs. H. linois Central R. R.. Co.,. 2oS U. s., 341: Prout vs Starr, 1Ss U. B.. 217; Da- wis. etc. vs. Los Angeles. 1s9 U. s. 217: Dobbins vs Los Angeles 195 U. g., BPS: Southern Express CO, vs. Mayor of Ensley. 11s Fed. Rep, T56; City vs. Peckham, 11s Fed. Rep, Sss; L. & N R. R. Co. vs. Port of Mobile. s3 Ala, 115; South and North Alabama R. R. Company vs. City Council, S4 Ala, 127; Springhead Spinning Co.,, vs. Riley l.. R.. Eq, 5SS; Osborne vs. U. g. Bank. 3 wheaton. 73s; Platte vs. Lee 2s Pacific Reporter. 10s6: City of At- lanta vs. Gate City Gas Light Co.,, 71 Ga, 196; Mayor of Baltimore vs. Rad acke. 49 Md. BIS: Quintini ys. Bay St. Louis, 64 Miss. 4s3; Smith vs. Bangs. 15 H., 3e9: Milwaukee E. R. l.. Go. vs Brady, 10S Wis, 467. see also vicks- burg Water Works O., vs., vicksburg. 1S5 U. S., B5.
 The Supreme Court of the United States has spoken in no uncertain terms on this subject It may be wei, how ever, to quote some of it's utterances.