The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-03-24
in Discharging Agent
Wood, Imprisoned for Vic.
lating Rate Law.
DECIDE AGAINST STATES
IN IMPORTANT CASES
Those From North Carolina and
Minnesota Both Involved.
Conflict Between State
and Federal Courts,
and Latter Are
Upheld.

w TAsmlSaToN. slsE,,' March as-1n re,
I NX/ tusinS to grant to Attorney
wv Young, of Minnesota, a writ OF
Il habcas corpus releasing him
from the penalty imposed by
the United States Circuit Court for tho
District OF Minnesota on the charge of
contempt of court in instituting pro-.
! ceeding in n State court for the en-
forcement of the railroad rate law af-
ter the Federal court had prohibited
4 such a. course, and in affirming the
decision OF Judge Pritchard. of the
United States Circuit Court for the,
! Western District of North Carolina
| discharging from imprisonment James
| III. Wood, g. ticket agent of the South
ern Railway at Ashevllle, after lie had
been sentenced by the Asllevile Po-
lice Court to serve a term on the rock
| pile on the charge of collecting for
a ticket on that road greater price
than was permitted by the State rail-
road law. the Supreme Court of the
United States to-day added another to
the series of decisions which have
rendered notable the present term OF
| that court.
Decides Against States.
| In both cases the right of the States
to fix rates for railroad transportation
was the issue, and both involved con-
licts between the Federal and the State
courts. The decision in each case was
opposed both to the States and to their
courts. The opinion of the court In
both cases was announced by. Justice
Peckham. and with the exception OF
Justice Harlan. all the other members
of the court stood behind him in the
announcement of the courts finding.
Justice Harlan read a dissenting optn-
ion in the Young case. IN which he took
the view that the suit was practically
n proceeding against the State. and
therefore not permissible under the
eleventh amendment 10 the Constitu-
ton. He therefore characterized the
opinion as ra-making in the history
OF the court, said 1t had the effect OF
closing the courts of State against
the State itself, and predicted that
the result would be disastrous.
The two cases We're so similar that
both practically We're decided in one
opinion. The principal pronouncement
was made In the Minnesota case.
Laws Held UnconstitutiOnal.
Justice Peckham's opinion as out
lined was 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 the companies and
imprisonment OF tlelr agents anu
employees the companies were in
effect prevented from ever ques-
tioning the validity of these laws.
as the risk of contscation of prop
erty and imprisonment of agents in
case the companies failed in their
defense was too much to UNDER
take in order to obtain a judicial
decision of the question of such
validity.
la Al
unconstitutional 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 suficiency
of the rates to enable the COM
pany to obtain some return to It's
stockholders for their investment
has for many years been held to
be one for the courts to decide, as
II would be violation OF the Con-
stitution of the United States tc
fix rates so low as to be confisca-
tory II enforced. The laws provid-
ing rates for transportation of
passengers and freight in the two
cases under consideration have
been held by the courts below to be
so low as to be substantially con-
fiscatory. and should therefore not
he enforced until after further
trials. The courts had jurisdiction
to make such an order"
Refused to Obey Court.
The proceeding III Ynung's case
grew out of an effort bv the Minne-
sofa Federal court on May 31st last
% restrain Mr. Young and other State
officials from executing or attempting
o execute the rate law Certain stock
FOLDERS OF the Northern Pacific Rail-
vas Company filed a suit at that time
skiing for an injunction TO prohibit
he State officials from carving the
aw into effect. The injunction was
cranted on the ground that tho law
vas confiscatorv and its promulga-
ion was immt diately followed by the I.
announcement of an action by Attor-
ey-General Young in tho Ramsey
ounty State District Court. in which
hat court was asked to direct the Is
uance OF q writ Of mandamGs COM
landing the Northern Pacific Com
any to comply with the rate law The
tate court immediately issued the writ
, compliance with Mr.. Young's pee
tion Mr., Young was summoned be-
ire the Federal court to give an nc-
'unt of his defiance OF the courts
and he was subjected to q
10 OF 500 for contempt of court,
nd at the same time ordered to dis
lss the case in tho State court.
Refusing either to pay the fine or to
smiss the case, Mr., Young brought
lie case to the supreme Court on
stition for writ or habeas corpus,
e based his petition upon the grounds
lat the United States Circuit Court
as without jurisdiction in the orig
"a, proceeding because thore was nc
verse citizenship, and that the suit
stituted against him as Attorney
eneral was III effect a suit against
70 State. and not against him,
The North Carolina case. that al
lsrin Hunter. OF Buncombe county.