The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-24
Assistant Attorney GeneraP'
Comment on Minnesota Case.
Will Put End to Legislation
Concerning Railroads.
DOESN'T TOUCH HERE
Has No Effect on Situation in
Kansas.
Mr.. Kanavel Says States Rights
Are Involved.

VERY bad indeed" was the comment
which John S. Dawson, assistant at
torney general, made this morning con-
corning the decision of the United
States supreme court on the Minnesota
habeas corpus case. Under this decis-
ion, the federal courts can enjoin
state official from enforcing state
law, and put him in Jail if he dis
obeys.
This decision, in my opinion" said
Mr.. Dawson, will practically put an
end to state legislation concerning rail-
roads. The attorney generals OF the
various states might as well resign
their offices The decision will proba-
bly, not interfere especially with the
acts of the state railroad commission
because that is a subordinate Dody
anyway, but it emasculates the state
legislature as far as any real authority
on railroad matters is concerned. rms
decision is of vastly greater import
ance than would have been decision
holding proposed freight tariffs to be
confiscatory. That would have been
merely a temporary setback; this de-
cision goes to the root of the state
authority, and makes the state power
less. 1t places it in the power of
single stockholder of a railroad com
pany, merely by an affidavit, to tie the
hands of the state authorities. II law
is passed by legislature aHect1nS
London, or New Jersey, or any other
remote place, can come before the fed
era1 court here in Kansas with plain
little affidavit setting forth that the
law will interfere with railroad earn
ingS, and the court may at once grant
an injunction which stops all further
efforts to enforce that law.
In the grace of God it may be pos
sible sometime to have hearing in
the federal courts on the merits of the
hIJf know how things
over in Missouri they passed maxi
mum freight rate law three years ago.
1t was tied up in the federal courts by
a temporary injunction of this kind,
and it has been tied up ever since.
Does anyone suppose that the state
authorities would try to interfere with
a county attorney in bringing suit?
Or does it seem likely that a citizen OF
a town could prevent a city attorney
from filing a case in court in the name
of the city? Yet that is just what the
United States supreme court has done
to the state officials. It's decision means
that an attorney general may not nle
a case without the consent of the fed
eral courts. OF course it is provided
that some constitutional question must
be involved but you will see that there
will always be constitutional ques-
tion.
Some time ago I said in an address
which 1 made that the refusal of the
supreme court to grant a writ Of habeas
corpus in the Minnesota case would
mean the practical repeal or the eleventh
amendment to the constitution Justice
Harlan, who wrote dissenting opin-
ion holds that this is exactly what has
been done. The supreme court holds
substantially that the eleventh amend
ment has been repealed.
'"The old question of states rights
is involved, but do you suppose that
OF the brave men who wear that lit
h11tt on
one out of a hundred thousand could
be found who would say that when
he fought for the preservation of the
Union he was trying to esta blish
the principle that a state officer
should not be allowed to file a suit to
enforce state laws? The men who
voted for the fourteenth amendment
never dreamed that they were there
by repeating the eleventh, but such is
unfortunately the case
The eleventh amendment to the
constitution, which Justice Harlan
declares is operative, in view of the
decision of the supreme court, is as
follows:
States shall not be construed to ex-
tend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one
of the United States by citizens of
another state, or by citizens or sub
1ects of any foreign state"
Mr. Dawson concluded: ''The Min
nesota case has only an indirect
effect in Kansas, and relations be-
tween the state officers and the To-
cal federal court are friendly. Judge
Pollock does not believe in granting
injunctions in important state cases
on a mere suggestion of counsel"
Does Not Affect Kansas Case.
George w. Kanavel chairman of
the state board of railroad commits
sioners; says that the decision of the
cI1n n q
North Carolina and Minnesota cases
will not affect the status of the new
maximum freight rate schedule
which the board has promulgated.
1.-The decision of the supreme
court" SAYS Mr. Kanavel does not
relate to the reasonableness of the
proposed rates in Minnesota er in
North Carolina. 1t simply says that
the penalties proposed are too severe.
There can be no such objection to the
Kansas rate order, because the pen
aIties are enforceable only. after a
judicial hearing. This decision simply
means that every man is entitled to
his day in court. No state can pass
law imposing such penalties that a
man can be sent to Jail for disobeying
that law without a legal hearing.
The North Carolina plan simply put
a man on the rock pile for violating
the law without giving him any op-
portunity to appear in court and de-
fend himself.
I'VE fought out this question of states
rights in the civil war, and there is no
question about the superiority of the
federal government in all matters where
the interests of the citizens of different
states conflict
THE reasonableness or unreasonable
ness Of the Minnesota tariffs were not
considered by the supreme court Hence
there is nothing in this decision which
in the slightest degree affects our pro-