Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-03-24
ANOTHER BLOW FOR
COURTS OF STATES
CONTINUED from First page)


y issued writ. ordering Woods re-
lease by Sheriff Hunter
This action of the court was the
elimination of several important steps
in the controversy beginning with tho
issuance of instructions by Judge
Pritchard against the state of North
Carolina. prohibiting the carrying out
of the crate law into effect. This
proceeding WAS followed by an nd
dress by Governor Glenn to the super
ior courts OF the state, questioning
Pritchard's authority and asking them
to see that indictments were foun!
against The agents of the railroad
company. In accordance with this
address, number Of arrests were
made. so that the Woods case became
a test case for many others. So i'm
portant did Judge prichard consider
the action of the state authorities that
he said in his opinion that If the cri.
minal prosecutions against the agents.
conductors and employees were per-
united to continue. the managers of
the railroads could not successfully
operate their trains carry The mails
or continue their usefulness as com
mon carriers. doing Interstate bust
ness.
Considering The North Carolina
case to have been disposed of by the
action of the court In the Minnesota
case. Justice Pcckham did not clab
crate his views in The former pro-
ceeding. He saws: Being detained
| In custody by virturc OF this convic
ton he had the right to apply for n
writ OF habeas corpus TO the United
States Circuit Court. and that Judge
| had power to Issue tho writ and dis
charge the prisoner under section
,o3 of the revised statutes OF the
United States, as he was then in Gus
tody for an act done pursuant to an
order. process or decree of n court
or Judge of the United States. The
writ being properly issued the judge
had the right and 1t WIS his duty
to examine into the facts and had
jurisdiction TO discharge the petit
toner"
Justice Harlan Dtssents.
Justice Harlan, In dissenting opln,
ion. took strong grounds In support
| of the theory that the proceeding in
1.-The Young case was suit against the
state and therefore not permissible
under the constitution He closed
Ibis statement in the following words:
I"Neithcr the words nor the policy
of the eleventh amend ment. will m-
der your former decision justify any
order Of an Federal court, the effect
lor which will no to exclude n state
from Its own court. Such an order
attended by such rules cannot
he sustained consistently with the
powers of the states, according to the
uniform declarations of this court
possessed under the constitution.
am justified by what this court has
Therefore declared in. now saying that
the wise men who framed tic consu-
tuition anu caused the adoption Of the
Eleventh amendment would have hcen
startled by the suggestion that state
OF the Union can he prevented by an
order OF n subordinate Federal court
| from being repra scented by its attor-
ncy general in suit brought by tho
state In one of It's own courts; and
Ithot such an order would be inconsis
tent with tho dignity Of the states MS
involved in their constitutional i'm
Immunity from the judicial process Of
| Tho federal courts Except In the linn
tied cases in which they may consis-
titutionallv he made parties in this
COURT and would be attended by most
| pernicous results