The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1908-03-26

cision Of Judge Pritchard Dis
charging Ticket Agent Wood.
Washington, Special-T.n refus-
ing to grant to Attorney General
| Young, of Minnesota, writ of
habeas corpus releasing him from the
| penalty imposed by the United States
Circuit Court for the district of
| Minnesota on the charge of contempt
| of court in instituting a proceeding
in a State court for the enforcement
| IF the railroad rate law after the
| Federal court had prohibited such a
course. and in affirming the decision
of Judge Pritchard. of the United
States Circuit Court for the western
| district of North Carolina. discharg-
ing from Imprisonment James H.
| Wood, ticket agent of the Southern
Railway at Asheville. after he had
| been sentenced by the Asheville po-
| lice court 10 serve term on the
rock pile on the charge of collecting
| for ticket on that road a greater
price than was permitted by the
State railroad law. the Supreme
Court of the United States added an
other to the series Of decisions which
have rendered notable the present
term of that court.
| In both cases the right of the
STATE to fix rates for railroad trans
port tation was the issue, and both
involved conflicts between the FEEDER
FL and the State courts. The decis-
ions IN each case was opposed both
to the States and to their courts,
The opinion Of tie court III both
eases. was announced b. Justice
Packham. md With the exception Of
Justice Harlan all the other members
of the court stoad behind him in the
announcement Of the court s finding.
Justice Harlan read dissenting
opinion in the Young ease in which
he took the view that the suit was
practically a proceeding against the
State and therefore not permissible
under the eleventh amendment to the
constitution. He therefore charac-
terized the opinion as era-making in
the history of the court, and said it
had the effect Of closing the courts
of a State against the State itself,
and predicts that the result would be
| disastrous.
Justice Peckham's Opinion.
Justice Peckham' s opinion as out
lined is in part as follows:
"The court has decided: That by
reason Of the enormous penalties
provided in the rate laws, by way of
fines against tho companies, and i'm
prisonment Of their agents and enl-
ployes. the companies were in effect
prevented from ever questioning the
validity Of those laws, as the risk of
confiscation of property and impris-
onment of agents in case the com
panies failed in their defense was toe
much to undertake in order to obtain
| q judicial decision Of the question
of such validity.
"Such laws are therefore held un.
constitutional as they prevented the
companies from resorting to the
courts, and therefore deprived them
Of the equal protection Of the laws.
"The question of the suffciencv OF
the rates to enable the company tc
obtain some return to its stockhold
ers for their investment. has fol
many years been held to be one fol-
the courts to decide, as it would be
violation of the constitution of the
United States to fix rates so low as t.
be confscatory if enforced.
"The laws providing rates fol
transportation Of passengers ant
freight in the two cases under con
sideration have been held by ths
courts below to be so low as to b.
substantially confscatory, and should
therefore not be enforced until aftel
further trials. The courts had juris
diction to make such an order'
Justice Harland's Opinion.
"Neither the words nor the polio,
Of the eleventh amendment will un
der our former decisions. justify an,
order of a Federal court, the neces
, sarv effect of which will be to ex
clude State from its own courts
Such an order attended by such re
suits cannot l submit, be sustainec
consistently with the powers whicl
the States, according to the uniform
!. declarations of this court, posses
under the constitution. | am iustife,
, by what this court has therefore de
! clared, in now saying that the wis
men who framed the constitution an,
who caused the adoption Of tn
!, eleventh amendment would have beel
startled by the suggestion that
State of the Union can be prevente'
by an order of a subordinate Fed
eral court from being represented b
is Attorney General in sui
brought by the State in one of it
own courts. and that such an orde
would be inconsistent with the die
nifty Of the States as involved in thei
constitutional immunity from the ju
dicial process Of the Federal court
Except in the limited cases in whic
they may constitutionally be mad
parties in this court) and would b
] attended by most pernicious re
sults.''