The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-30
Wakes Preliminary Injunction Per mansnt and Holds That Acts of [ si.lature Strike at Rights of the Common Carriefs.ss

ku< NvlnlAiun NektAsissa
 The able and comprehensive decision of Judge Thomas e. Jones. of the United States Circuit Court of the Mid- de District of Alabama in the Ala bama rate cases. Is herewith published in fun. No decision rendered in Ala bama in recent years was regarded as so important or attracted such inter est The opinion was prepared with the most thorough care and the great est industry. In all no less than six teen vexed questions of law are set- tied and in adjudicating these ques- tions 1t might be said that audse Jonea rendered a full opinion on each one. deciding, as it were. sixteen cases. The record of the cases was perhaps the longest ever submitted to judge in Alabama.
 The greatest popular interest will no doubt center in that feature of the opinion wherein Judge Jones discusses the question of States rights. It IS held that States rights were not ln- volyed in the issue. but Judge Jones went far enough into discussion to show that even under the Constitution of the Confederate States the state eould not take the property Of cit- fzen without due process of law. nor could 1t authorize a citizen to do 1t.
 The opinion of Judge Jones follows: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT U .,in
 UNITED STATES, FOR THE MIL
 OLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Central of Georgia, ct al V Ka.iroao
 Commission, ct al. In Equity.
 Jones District Judge.-Tnese cases involve the rignts of of tne Hsst nropertiss devoted to State and lnter-stats cvla~ .a. : merce, the relation of the state to aHe United states. the power oa .ne ana inc riahts of its citizens under notn .ne SSste and Federal ConstitutlonS. Counsel were invited to presednt p.d tnels .ns har with liperty, after the opinion of fhe court was announced. to nle sucn formal pieadings as they mlsht vS @ vised. The argument thus hao nas Nan ahle and elaborate. The dlsposi- fIon of matters of such magnitude calls for fall presentation of tne reAsons which govern the court m Ns eVhSiu s.gs A brief survey at the outset of Inc nature Of the controversey, Wltl alo in the better understan ,ot. ~ r4s 2 s,racise issue involved. Cpnnplalntahts vFho are citizens Of other states ..a al.e oifizens of this state entitLea to c9Lne into this court by reason oL tns eeea as al question. seek to prevent citizens Q. 2. Aiabarna from doing acts, under cotor of fts laws, which coupBa4ntants clam will illegally destroy property rssns s. ', ' 444 shA Seafe and the Unsted States. stated more in detail the controversy ls tnis' ms Cofnrlafnants are common carriers. be- Ing sngsgea9b 9b n ,seisisture seaS S to " fix their InaxImum rates. The Leglsiasnrs rt,Iss nae done so. The rate so n1ed are pIin,a I,1 facie lawful. The LeglsiatuIS 's..aaso.,o nas ,,o xbIa. The courts are the fnal arphsrs gYf such questions. The carriers ci&,nn that fhe rates fixed are unreasonapies ap sdeouate return on the value Of flair property used in the service ren- dered messengers and shippers. Aney f,ray that the execution or these sta- tntss be enioined, since, If they are not restrained, complaintants VIII pc oe- nr.yed of property without que pto- tesntI, Amendment. and provisions of fhe Constitution of this State Tor the protection of property rights; Hespgn- dents deny these ciains. nd ;nr atsn 10 enforce them by civil suits against the carriers. and by indictments ana prosecutions against eompiainants, tie carriers to observe the statutory rates. This the entire scope or the controversy between the part:es be- feast, the cases fall within the very letter of any definition, or ceases IA equity. and "controversies between cit izens of different states of which tnis court is given Jurisdiction by the Con- sfiturion and laws, and the State is not involved. This is also true, If we substance: for the interest of the State. as a State, is no greater .n the subject matter of the controversy here than in any other case net"esn ra claimed to be illegally invaded Tn the execution of State laws by the acts Of Ths sr RiIis are Not Suit Against the
 
 In Reagan V. Farmers Leon & Trust Co, i54 U. S., 362, 3s0, the insfstence was made. that the suit was against the State. The court said: We are unable to yield to this argument So far from the State being the real par ty in the case and upon whom the in the pecuniary sense, no interest at all. Going back of all matters of form, the only parties pecuniarily affected are the shippers and the carriers, ana tns the State can have arises when 1t Abandons it's governmental character and as an individual employs the rail road company to. carry It's property. There is a sense, doubtless, in which 1t may be said that the State is interest ed in the question but only n arasrSst gov- ed in the well-being of its citizens in the just and equal enforcement Of its laws, but such governmental interests causes it to bear the burden of an ad- verse Judgment. Not a dollar will be taken from the treasury of the StateS no pecuniary obligation of it will be enforced and none of its property will affected by any decree which may be rendered. It is not nearly so much affected by the decree in this case as it would be by an injunction against officers staying the collection of taxes; and yet frequent and unquestioned ex- ercsses of Jurisdiction of courts, State and Federal, has been indulged ;n re- stralnt of collection of taxes illegal in whole or in part"
 Tn Missouri Railway Go. V. Missouri 2eslrcsS StS. Commission. 1S3 U. s. 53 60 1t was insisted that the State was a real plaintiff. and as a State was not a citizen within the meaning of the removal acts. a mandamus proceeding to compel the railway company to ob- serve the rates could not be removed to the United States Court, on the ap- plication of the railway company. The Supreme Court. however, held that the State was not the real party. and that the suit. other conditions permitting, could be removed. It said: Tt Is not an action to recover any money for the State. It's results do not inure to the benefit of the State as a State in any degree. It is suit to compel compliance with an order of the rail-