Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-03-23
Minnesota Railway Rates De-
CIared Unconstitutional.
RIGHTS OF THE INVESTORS
Supreme Court Holds Them to Be
Entitled to Protection.
PROTEST OF STOCKHOLDERS
Claimed That Charges Fixed by
Legislature Were Too Low to
Return Any Profit.

Return Any Profit.
The Supreme Court Of the United States
today denied the petition of Attorney
General Edward T. Young of Minnesota
for writ OF haheas corpus in the case
In which he is held for contempt of court
by the United States Circuit Court of
Minnesota because he refused to abide
by an injunction issued by that court
forbidding him from taking any action
looking to the enforcement of the maxi
mum railroad rate law. The court at the
same time pronounced invalid the Mime
sofa law regulating both freight and pas
senger rates. The opinion was announced
by Justice PeCkham. who held the Mime
sofa law TO he unconstitutional on its
face because of the penalties imposed for
disobedience to it.
Protest of Stockholders.
The case has attracted much attention
ever since it was begun last May. because
st involves not only the right of state leg
isIatures to make laws for the regulation
Of railroad rates within their own states.
but also because 1t is one of the cases
in which the state and the federal courts
nave come INTO COnlICt over lllS iiIRoi
tant question.
The proceeding in Attorney General
Youngs case grew out of an effort by
the Minnesota federal court May 81 last
to restrain Mr.. Young and other state Of
ficials from executing or attempting to
execute the rate law Certain stock
holders of the Northern Pacific Railway
Company filed suit at that time asking
for an injunction to prohibit the state
off1cials from carrying the law into ef-
was so low as to make impossible re-
turns TO the company on its investment
Injunction Granted.
The injunction was granted on the 23d
of September on the ground that the law
was conf1scatory and it's PRONUNCIATION
was Immediately followed by the COM
mencement of an action by Attorney Cen
eral Young in the Ramsey county state
district court in which that court was
asked to direct the issuance Of a writ of
mandamus commanding the Northern Pa
cifc Company to comply with the law
The state court Immediately issued the
writ in compliance with Mr.. Young's petl-
tion. and this proceeding precipitated a
sharp conflict between the federal and
the state courts.
AR. Young was summoned before the
former to give an account of his defiance
of the courts injunction and failing to
make a satisfactory explanation he was
subject to a fine of 500 for contempt
OF court and a the same time ordered to
dismiss the case in the state court.
The Attorney Generals Appeal.
Refusing either to pay the fine or TO dis
miss the case. Mr.. Young Immediately
brought the case to the Supreme Court
OF the United States on petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. He based his pc
tition upon the grounds that the United
States circuit court was without jurisdic-
ton in the original proceeding, because
there was no diverse citizenship. and that
the suit instituted against him as at
tor1ley general was in effect suit against
the state and not against him.
Justice Peckham held that inasmuch
as there were federal questions involved
IL was competent for the United States
court to take cognizance of the case. He
said the penalties imposed by the law, a
fine of $4,000 and imprisonment for five
years for each offense. ar such as to
practically deter the railroad companies
from appealing to the courts for relief.
and that therefore the law was ''uncon-
stitutional on its face
He also decided that the proceeding
against the attorney general was not a
suit against the state. The case grew out
OF an especial effort to enforce the law
Of the Minnesota legislature of last April
by which maximum freight rate was
fixed. hut Justice .Peckham's decision
dealt with the entire railroad rate law
Of the state. and he held to be uncon-
stitutional all parts of it attempting to
TX either freight or passenger rates He
called attention to the fact that there lis
Sl1.TO.hUOOO of money invested in rail
roads In the United States. and said the
owners OF this property are entitled to
as much protection from the courts as
any other property holders-no more no
less.
Justice Harlan Dissents.
Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting
opinion in which he expressed the view
tnat tne decisions of the court in the
Minnesota and North Carolina cases mark
a new era In the relationship between the
states and the federal government and
between the federal and the state courts
He contended that the suit Of the railroad d
company In the Minnesota case was in
reality suit against the state and he
dUelt at length upon the enormity of per
mittinS subordinate United States court
TO order the imprisonment of an offirial
Of sovereign state TO test a law of that
state. If TINS can he done he said
why can't "A similar injunction be put on
a grand jury or a district attorney in any
criminal proceeding?
Predicts Disastrous Results.
Justice Harlan asserted that the net ef-
feet of the decision was To close the courts
of Minnesota against the state itself be-
cause ii tied the hands of the attorney
general of the state. He declared that
there was no precedent justfying today S
decision. and asserted that there was mo
reason to wreck the state law because oi
the supposed hardshipS effected by it,
He further asserted that in effect the
opinion nulities the eleventh amendment
OF the Constitution. and said the trainers
Of that fundamental law would be startled
~ they could know of today's Constructio ion
OF the provision He predicted that the
result would be disastrous.
John Mitchell at West Baden.
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. March 13.-John
Mitchell. president of the miners fnda Y