Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1908-03-24

lsing to grant to Attorney General
oung of Minnesota a writ of habeas
brpus releasing him from the penalty
nposed by the United States district
BURT for the district of Minnesota on
be charge Of contempt of court in in
ituting proceeding in a state
burt for enforcement of the railroad
bite law after the federal court had
rohibited such a course, and in
firming the decision of Judge
ritchard of the United States circuit
burt for the western district of
orth Carolina, discharging from inn
risonment James H. Wood, ticket
gent of the Southern railway at
sheville, after he had been SEN
enced by the Asheville police court
serve a term on the rock pile on
be charge of collecting for a ticket
that road greater price than was
ermitted by the state railroad law,
nc SupIOhC SOuib VI lAO OHltSu
tates today added another to the
eries of decisions which have rem
cred notable the present term of
bat court.
In both cases the right of the states
fix rates for railroad transporta-
on was the issue, and both involved
bnflicts between the federal and the
tate courts. The decision in each
Rse was opposed both to the states
nd to their courts. The opinion of
be court in both cases was an
ounced by Justice Peckham, and
it'll the exception of Justice Harlan,
the other members of the court
TODD behind him in the announce
lent of the courts finding. Justice
larlan read a dissenting opinion in
be Young case, in which he took the
ew that the suit was practically a
Foceeding against the state, and
herefore not permissible under the
nth amendment to the constitution.
e therefore characterized the opin-
IN as era-making in the history of
be court, said it had the effect of
osing the courts of state against
he state itself and predicted that the
esult would be disastrous.
Cases Are Similar.
The two cases were so similar that
oth practically we're decided in one
pinion. The announcement was
ade in the Minnesota case. Justice
eckham's opinion was authoritative
outlined as follows:
THE court has decided:
That by reason of the enormous
enalties provided in the rate laws
y way of fines against the companies
nd imprisoning their agents and EN-
loyes, the companies are in effect
revented from ever questioning the
'alidity of these laws, as the risk OF
pnfiscation of property and imprison-
bent of agents in case the companies
billed in their defense was too much
; undertake in order to obtain a
Idicial decision of the question Of
lch validity.
Such laws are therefore held un-
Institutional as they prevented tht
pmpanies from resorting to the
purts and therefore deprived then
equal protection of the laws
The question of suficiency of the
ties to enable the company to obtaiT
Ime return to its stockholders for
cir investments has for many years
zen held to be one for the courts tC
ecide. as It would be a violation Of
e constitution of the United State.
fix rates so low as to be confisca.
ry II enforced.
The laws providing rates for tbs
ansportation of passengers and
Eight in the two cases under eonsid
alton have been held by the courts
ow to be so low as to be substan
lily eonfiscatory. and should there
e not be enforced until furthei
als. The courts had jurisdiction Il
Ike such an order. II has also fol
my years been held that a suit Il
one against the state although /
events a state oficer from bring
suits for the enforcement OF /
lte enactment which fixed rates 81
v as to be conflscatory and whiel
was therefore a violation Of th'
Institution Of the United States, an.
IS principle Is reiterated and agaII
cided IN these cases.
The Jurisdiction OF the fedora
nrts IN such cases Is only exercises