The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1908-03-27
DECISION OF SUPREME
COURT ANOTHER BLOW
TO STATES RIGHTS"
Justice Harlan. Dissenting,
Claims Minnesota Courts
Position Is Tenabis.
ANTITRUST LAW
Provisions of Civic Feeeration's
Hmendment ae Introduced by Con-
gresham Hepburn Arc Set
Forth in Detail.

amendment as Introduced by Con-
gresham Hepburn Arc Set
Forth in Detail.
Washington. March 26.--1n Its de-
cision holding invalid the railroad rate
laws of Minnesota and North Carolina,
the supreme court OF the United States
expressed the following opinion:
1.-THE court has decided that by rea-
son of the enormous penaltles PROVIDED
In the rate laws by way OF fines against
the companies and imprisonments OF
their agents and employees the COM
pa1lies arc In effect prevented from ever
questioning the validity of those laws,
as the risk of contiscatlon of property
and the Imprisonment of agents in case
the companies failed in their defense
was too much to undertake IN q judicial
decision OF a question of such validity.
such laws are therefore held I'M
constitutional, as they prevent the COM
panies from resorting to the courts, and
therefore deprive them OF the equal
protection OF the laws.
THE question Of the sufflclency of
the rates to enable the company to OBJ
tain some return to its stockholders for
their Investments has for many years
been held to be one for the courts to
decide, AZ 1t would be a violation of the
constitution of tho United States to fix
rates SO low as to be c~onf1scatory II en-
forced.
1.-THE laws OF providing rates for the
transportation Of passengers In the two
cases under consideration have been
held by the court below to be so low as
to be substantially conf1scatory. and
should. therefore, not be enforced until
jurisdiction to make such nm order.
TT has also beer held for many years
that a suit is not against the state.
although 1t prevents a state officer
from bringing suits for the enforce
ment Of a state enactment which t1xes
rates 10 low as to be cortiscatOry and
which act was therefore a violation OF
the constitution of the United States,
and this principle is reiterated and
again decided in these cases.
Not Aaainst State.
cit Is not more a suit ~againstthe state
than 1t In q proceeding which compels
an officer of the state to produce a
crime against the state before q fed
eral court OF Judge. who thereupon dis
charges such person on the ground that
his imprisonment Is in violation of the
federal constitution. Such a proceed
ing has been held valid for many years
past.
1.-THE case OF Fits versus McGhee
was decided upon its own facts and has
not been regarded az overriding the
former cases upon the subject OF what
constituted a suit against the state.
1.-THE Jurisdiction OF the federal courts
In such cases 10 only exercised where
the state enactment Is alleged to be q
violation of the constitution of the
United States n in such case 1t is
proper for those courts to take jurisdic-
tion equally with the state courts, as
the constitution OF the United States
IL by its w provisions the supreme
law. OF the land. anything in state legis-
1atiOn or law to the contrary notwith-
standing, and there is no u%surpation of
Jurisdiction in such case. The same du-
h party had his choice of forum
without any invidious distinction
against the stnte courts and in favor
OF the federal courts because II his
choice of the latter.
when q federal court has taken jur-
isdiction OF a case before n proceed
ting in n state court has been COM
menced, the former court has authority
to decide the case n to enjoin any
rerson from proceeding in a state court
until the federal court has proceeded
to tudRment. This is also a well es-
tablished right of n court Of. equity md
no new ground is taken In this case"
Harlan pisssnts.
Justice Harlan deemed the cases Of
ENf1cient Importance to Justify q $4,000
word dissension. taking the ground in
support OF the theory that the proceed
Ing ! n the Young case was a suit
against h state. and therefore not
permissible under the constitution. He
closed his statement in the following
words:
Neither the words nor the policy
OF the 18th amendment will, under our
former decisions. Justify any order Of
4 federal court, the necessary effect of
which would be to exclude a state
from Its w courts. Such an order
attended by UGH results cannot, I sub
nit be sustained consistently with the
powers Of the states. according to the
uniform declarations Of this court. I
am Justified by what this court has
heretofore declared. in now saying that
h wise men who framed the cOnsti.
tuition, would have been startled by
b suggestion that a state Of the union
can be prevented by an order of a
subordinate federal court from being
represented by its attorney general in
. suit brought by the state in one Of
lts own courts n that such an order
would be Inconsistent with the dignity
OF the states as involved in their con-
stitutional immunity for the judicial
process Of the federal courts Except in
the limited cases they constitutionally
may be made parties in this court)
and would be attended by most per-
niclous results"