The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-25
ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYSH
STRIKES DOWN PRECEDENT
Governor Conner Refuses to Make
Statement.
supreme Court Decided Adversely All
tAe Principal Contentions of the
state In the Alabama
Cases.


decision of the United States Supreme
Court in the Minnesota and North
Carolina cases was q keen disappoint-
ment to Governor Conner and his legal
advisers. The decision was heavy
II not knock out blow to the states
side OF the litigation now pending In
the Federal Court. There was deep
gloom at the Capital yesterday.
Governor Conner refused to discuss
the decision. He told the newspaper
mon.
Now II you quote me- quote me as
saying have nothing TO say and don't
make me say anything else"
The preliminary reports of the
opinion by the Supreme Court indi-
Gated that the court had based its ac-
tion on the grounds that the penalties
named in the Minnesota railroad acts
were excessive. with only that bull
letin before him Attorney General
CARRIER issued a statement In which
he held that the action Of the
court in the Minnesota case did not
mean that the Alabama cases were
necessarily affected by 1t.
The later and fuller reports of the
decision, however, showed that conten-
lions which had been steadily adj
vanced by the attorneys for the, State
Of Alabama had been overthrown and
destroyed by the decision In the Min
nesota and North Carolina cases. On
the other hand the decision sustained
In toto the important positions taken
BY the attorneys for the railroad.
In brief interview given yesterday
Attorney General CARRIER said that the
eject OF the decision was TO strike
down tho eleventh amendment and 70
pernait suits to be brought against the
state"
The similarity bstween the MinnS-
aota and the Alabama cases was fire.
quantly commented upon by the &ttoF-
neys on both sides during the big rail-.
road hearing before Judge Jones in
January. The Minnesota and the Ala
bama railroad acts were very similar
and 1t is said that the Alabama acts
were based upon the Minnesota laws.
The point at issue was certainly the
same.
The State of Minnesota contended
through Attorney General Young that
Federal Court had no right to sus-
pend an act Of the State Legislature,
although the claim might be made
that the act in question was conflsca-
tory. A Federal Court OF Minnesota
suspended the railroads act and con-
demned Attorney General Young for
contempt of court when he attempt
ed to enforce the acts nothwithstand-
ing the injunction. 1t was this case
which went to the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Young and through
him the State of Minnesota denied
the Jurisdiction Of the Federal Court
in the issue.
This point was decided in the
courts opinion Monday. The court
held that the Federal Court had juris-
diction IL proceedings were brought
in it before they were started in any
other court. The same condition pre-
vailed in the Alabama suits
The State of Minnesota contended
that the suits in opposition to the rail-
the State, and were. therefore. OPP
posed to the Eleventh Amendment. The
state of Alabama in the January hear
ing made that same claim strongly and
positively. The chief point in the
Alabama case was that the State was
being sued when the roads were bring
ing suits to prevent the enforcement
OF alleged confiscatory acts. The SUI
preme Court settled this issue adverse
" to the States of Alabtma and Min
nesota. 1t declared that any attempt
in the courts to prevent an agent from
enforcing an alleged conhscaory act
could not be considered suit against
the State. A Montgomery lawyer put
II in this way yesterday:
The decision simply says that the
state can not put its hands into the
pocket Of a citizen and that any effort
made to prevent the State from naming
an agent to put his hard in a citI- !
gems pocket is not a suit against the
State"
The court held. too. that the penal
ties named in the Minnesota acts were
so excessive that they amounted to a
bar to the railroads entering a court
for relief The railroads are claiming
that the Alabama penalties are even
worse than those of Minnesota. The
decision declares emphatically that the
Federal Court has the right to inves-
tigate the claim made by the rail-
roads that the rates are confiscatory.
1t IL clear and positive that the right |
OF review of alleged confiscatory rates
rests. This is another deadly blow to
the position Of the State in the Ala
bama cases.
In a brief statement issued yester-
day Attorney General CARRIER speaks |
his regret that the court has taken the |
position 1t occupies In the Minnesota |
cases. Without saying so the Attorney
General intimates that the decision Is |