The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-30

Genera to osmmenos msndarnps pro. ceedings, and institute sulls Tor the forfeiture of the bridge franchise, m erds. to compel ss to observe ths con. that the Goysrnor and Attoraey Gen eral have nothing to do with these statutory penalties. which can be recovered only In per We cannot afirm that either of these officials nave been approached by the persons who used the bridge. to bring either of the xpprehended legal pro- sssdinss z much less s. can ws say NeS 5sSt erthsless. while we have no better bA- SIS than our fears. We do rear that our property rights will be violated by the acton of the Governor and Attorney General, and we. therefore. ask the court tt prevent these ofiicigls. and alis othsr persons, from taking the appfe- nsnded proceedings, SO that in such q sdlf, we can test our rights with the pIbsie and fix the status of our bridge
 When the case went to the supreme Coui:. counsel for the bridge company lenlso that the suit was ia reality one of cases to sustain their view. The court replied: The officers In those cases, mad either committed, "cr were about to commit some specific wrong rSss ssspass snd 'S shsse ns ocsls tn thus Ssea
 personal wrong-doers You do not charge any personal wrong on the of. acsrs here. They do not appear to De aso asVs not to sSomn has y sn hsy are aa under
 any duty to enforce the statutes of which you complain. nor have you al- legged 10 any way, that they are about
 are. therefore. suing them only ln their purely representative capacity, and not as individuals, who. as officials. under an unconstitutional statute, have done,
 ssn sas ssatss so d eses ses sy f9ns attitude. you cannot sue them In their purely representative capacity, without regard to any thfAatened wrong on their part, h order to dictate the pol. execution of the statute concerning gour bridge. Under suck circumstances, your suit against these officers. is nothing but suit against the. State.
 ana 1t was to enlphaslze the distincticn between attitude of the officials In the cases cited, and that in hand. that the court spoke of the officers, Reins td." or holding special relations to the particular statute" alleged to be unconstitutionaL The court was merely defining these .'spsclal relations" to an authorize . suit against the official to prevent hts execution of 1t, without It's failing within the reason forbidding s,,..s against the ststs Tsis test s,nss wss sized. It was. In the language of the court. that the officers were commit ting or wore about to commit some Ss ssss e sss ySf sr rraSsgP tTssPa'' It G the s.f IF
 evident fact that the specially charg-. Ing'' the offleer could not, merely, of and in Itself. affect the wrong. The shs.ss to @t3a,s.sxs N s~sr,,tfrn ns ths statute, so that If not prevented, wrong would be done. If he Is not specially" charged to do 1t. and II is sr. nSs sssss @ s h % Tsand s s about sooa sS .s ss tt
 place the apprch ension of Injury, or upon which to base a cult on that ac- count The court did not Intend to as- sncs sns a between ss the wrong Vi @ ana the rem rem. edy. simply becanse the wrong was cer specially charged" while In th. mated 6y an ofieiai who. though. not specially directed" nevertheless exe- cutes an uneonstitutional statute, In the exercise of the option the law left
 The solicitor was brought Into the case long after the suit was com msnced against the State. and the Gov ernor and Attorney General merely as Of which suit for the .easons stated. the court never had Jurisdiction. MT. Justice Harlan was careful to say that <rstSh ether the owners of the bridge and the p1afntiffe, as their repressntatives, were denied by the State fair and req sonable compensation for the use of their property by the public. was q question which could not be considered in this ease That is not a matter to be determined la . suit against the State, for of such suit the court could not take cognizaDce." The suit, as thus presented. being still suit of which the court could nut take jurfs- diction at the time the supplementa1 bill was nled. it was inamaterial. so far as the enforcement of the statute relating to the tolls was concerned, whether the statute was valid or In- valid. The court In that kind of g, suit had no authority to determine and solicitor who was acting. and if the Coli statute we're confscatory, had thus become . wrong-doer, within the meaning of the decisions cited to the court, and recognized as authority by if he could not be brought into the case by the supplemental bill for the purpose of testing the statute, for two reasons. The court had no jurisoIN
 ton In that case to determine the va. to De destroyed by the prosecution of the indictments, and. in the second place. the court never having obtained Jurisdiction of the matter to which the indictments related and which were found long after the equity suit was commenced, the State court had ob- talned prior Jurisdiction of the matter. 1t would have been entirely improper therefore to interfere with his action