The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-08-27
WeH KnoApn Lab Journal
 For the Sfate'S Contention

prosecutions might be instituted which would be in effect an enforcement of the law which had been enjoined and would thus work a hardship on the plaintiff seeking the relief as well a practical null lif1cation of the federal courts order, Justice Harlan's answer in the MoGhee. case, supra, was: Let the bridge com pany appear to the indie tments and de- fend themselves upon the ground that the state statute is repugnant to the con stitution of the United States. The state court is competent to determine the ques- ton thus raised and Is under duty to enforce the mandates of the supreme law of the land. And if the question Is de. termined adversely to the defendant in the highest court of the state in which the decision could be had, the Judgment may be re-examned by this court upon writ of error. That the defendants may be frequently indicted constitutes no req son why @ federal court of equity should assume to interfere with the ordinary court of criminal procedure In state court"
 We believe these decisions as we'll as the correct theory of relations which should and do exist between the federal and state government, sustain the gov ernors of North Carolina and Alabama in their contention that the local federal courts had no authority to enjoin the enforcement of the criminal law of these states and to release on habeas corpus persons convicted of violating the local statutes regulating railroad rates. No argument is necessary. is permissible, would absolutely overturn the last vestige of state sovereignty. But the federal supreme court has with wonderful clear ness preceived this tendency and has kept a stern hand upon the local federal courts in their too eager desire to con trol state affairs when alleged to be con- trary to the federal constitution.
 In the recent case of Urquhart V. Brown, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 459, GA Cent. L. J. 4S2, the supreme court of the United States very clearly and very definitely lays down the law to be observed by inferior federal courts which 1t will do well for them to follow. The court said: Tt is the settled doctrine of this court that, although the circuit courts of the United States, and the several justices and judges thereof, have authority. under existing statutes, to discharge unop ha- beas corpus, one held in custody by state authority In violation of the con- stitution or any treaty or law of the United States, the court, justice, judge has discretion as to the time and mode in which the power so conferred shall be exerted; and that, in view of the lations existing, under our system of government, between the judicial tribu- nals of the union and of the several states, federal court or a federal judge will not ordinarily interfere by habeas corpus with the regular course of proce- dure under state authority, but will leave the applicant for the writ of habeas cor pus to exhause the remedies afforded by the state for determining whether he is illegally restrained of his liberty. After the highest court of the state, competent under the state law to dispose of this matter, has finally acted, the case can be brought to this court for re-examna- ton. The exceptional cases in which federal court or ,udFa may sometimes appropriately interfere by habeas cor pus in advance of final action by the authorities of the state are those great of urgency that require to be promptly dis posed of; such for instance, as cases in volving the authority and operations of the general government, or the oblga- tions of this country to, or its relations with foreign nations The present case is not within any of the exceptions rec ognized in our former decisions. If the applicant felt that the decision, upon habeas corpus, in the supreme court of the state, was in violation of his rights under the constitution or laws of the United States, he could have brought the case by writ of error directly from that court to this court"
 
 this constant meddling by inferior federal courts with the local administration of criminal law. This is what has caused the popular indignation in North Caro- lima and Alabama. It was not the mere injunction against a state officer not to put into operation some affirmative act enjoined upon him by some statute alleged to be unconstitutional and likely if enforced to work irreparable injury to the plaintiff, but the action of the federal court in enjoining local prose- cutors and grand juries all over the state against enforcing the criminal law of the state against persons who had vio- lated it. and even after conviction, in releasing persons so convicted on writs of habeas corpus. No action could be more
 high handed and without authority of law. It presupposes a condition to ex- ist where any person in any state may come into a federal court and inform the judge that he desires to commit an act which is a crime under the laws of that state, and desiring the courts protection in advance, so that he may not be unduly hindered in his pursuit of crime, request that the judge issue a restraining order against every prose- cutor and grand jury in the state that they shall not indict or prosecute the complainant for certain crime which lie is about to commit for the reason that the statute making that act crime Is believed by the court to be contrary to the constitution of the United States. The whole thing Is an absurdity and it surprises us that inferior federal courts do not see the proprieties of the situa- tion, If not the fact that there Is no uo sound legal basis for the assumption of such jurisdiction, as declared by the supreme court of the United States.