The semi-weekly messenger., 1907-12-06

It is but Just TO the majority OF the
court to say that no case which mas
ever come before that court has ever
received a more thorough and eiao-
orate examination Every feature OF
il. and every point presented, was
most thoroughly investigated and
discussed before the final vote was
taken. .s...
II is true the decision is not unan-
imous, but il is a great gratiflcation
to the friends of justice throughout
North Carolina that the four asso-
ciate justices all agree fully in the
judgment and opinion rendered.
Those who read that opinion in full
we think must conclude that the
judgment of the court has been de-
Tended with great learning and abil-
ity and invincible logic.
Although the ultimate decision of
the court is with the defendant rail-
road company and although the
Judgment of the superior court is
reversed and the indictment and
criminal proceedings dismissed, the
court very properly and earnestly
discussed the grave and important
federal questions presented in the
record Those questions are all de-
cided in favor of the state and in
the discussion of them, the opinion
shows that the court speaks with no
uncertain sound in maintaining the
dignity and.independence within its
constitutional sphere of the sover-
eign state of North Carolina.
The opinion opens with the state
ment that the case is one of su-
| preme Importance, as it involves the
right of the state to enforce It's
criminal laws without interference
on the threshold by the national gov
! ernment or its courts.
! It says: IF the contention OF the
! defendant is right, the authority OF
separate sovereignty of the state is
! myth and not, as we bad supposed,
/ a reality" Again: I'VE had taken
it to be settled, without leaving
/ room for cavil or controversy, that
| a federal court could not stay the
arm of the sovereign state in the
execution of it's criminal laws. If
any exception to this just and neces-
sary rule exists, it must be very
rare one and cannot for a moment
be considered as applying to this
case" The court further holds that
| there is nothing in the record which
| tends to prove that the defendant
| was not given time to prepare its de-
fence Two propositions are con-
sidered in the opinion:
First.-Did the proceedings in the
| United States circuit court constitute
a defence to the indictment or pre-
vent the grand jury from returning
the bill and the state court from
taking cognizance of the same and
trying the case?
| Second.-Is any criminal offence
charged in the bill of Indictment?
These are the pivotal and decisive
questions in the case. The Judge
saws that the first proposition in
! wolves so serious question and sc
is far-reaching in its consequences
that if the contention of the defend
ant could be sustained, the charac'
ter of our government would be en-
tirelv changed and it would cease
to be a government by the people
and for the people, as originally con
| templated by it's trainers. If it /:
ever held that the federal courts
! can virtually take charge of ou
+ state governments by the process o
! Injunction, the separate sovereignt.
! of the state, distinguished from tina
of the federal government, would b.
G completely extinguished." Quotlni
o from the federal court of the Unite'
= States, the opinion says:
G "That the people of each state
compose a state having it's own gov
4 ernment and endowed with all tn
: functions essential to separate an
! independent existence, and that with
4 out the states in union there coul
- be no such political body as tn
4 United States. Not only, Therefore
: can there be no laws Of separate G
n independent autonomy to the state
- through their union, under the col
q stitution, but it may be not unrea
, | onably said that the preservation
# the states, and the maintenance
Al | their government, are as much W1tl
,e in the design and care of the col
J. stitution as the preservation OF II
a Union and the maintenance OF u
4 national government.
% The supreme court Of North Car
If lima in this case relies almost e.
~ tirelv upon the we'll settled decision
o. of the supreme court of the Unite
+ States to sustain it's conclusion tn
II | the federal courts have no power
,r interfere by injunction with the o
1e | erations of the state courts in Il
III | administration and enforcement
the state laws.
nt The opinion says that if anythln
lv the supreme court of the Unit
IL States has been more pronounc
I'd than the state tribunals themselV
a in denying to the federal courts t
ad Jurisdiction now claimed to reside
\ them. The opinion not only defen
this conclusion upon we'll settled co
he stitutional principles, but Justlhes
nm under the sound doctrines of eq'
en- table Jurisprudence.
of The opinion says: ''It is a VI
on | settled rule both in England a
m America that a court of equity h
- no Jurisprudence to interfere by
junction to restrain criminal pro:
- cution, whether the prosecution
by a violation of statutes or oy