The Washington herald., 1908-03-25
Capitalization by judicial Power.


The outbreak OF particularism which
led. last summer. to the enactment OF
drastic anti-railroad legislation and to
serious conflicts OF Jurisdiction between
Federal and State courts in widely sepa-
rated parts of the country has been sum-
marily sauelched by the Supreme Court
II cannot be said that Justice Peckham's
decision was unexpected. No one sup
posed that the Federal courts would
tsmely submit to having their jurisdic-
ton curtailed by State legislation intend
ed 70 prevent the recourse of foreign liti-
gants to those courts, or that the Supreme
Court would fail 70 annul the enactments
through which il was sought. by depriv-
ing corporations Of rights hitherto en-
joyed by them. to compel them to submit
10 regulations alleged to be confiscatory
In their nature and effect. Nor is Il sur
prising that the Supreme Court has up
held the jurisdiction of the lower Federal
courts IN cases arising out of legislation
affecting the revenues OF railroads whose
owners reside without the State Yet.
when the decision is taken in its larger
aspect. when it's full force as affecting
the power of the, States TO regulate COM
merce within their own borders is real
lied. il will be seen that as Justice Har-
Ian observed In his dissenting opinion.
the court has made a departure destined
to work important changes In our gov
ernmental structure
As the State laws reviewed in the de-
cison we're the product Of a State rights
revival. so the decision itself is a strong
reassertion of the supremacy. of the Fed
eral power. Nothing Mr. Roosevelt has
done, or may hereafter succeed in doing.
will contribute so nightly TO the cen
tralization Of Federal power over the
transportation lines Of the country as
this opinion OF the Supreme Court. which
means in effect, that every enactment Of
a State for the regulation Of railroads
within its own boundaries may be en-
joined by Federal judge and brought TO
Washington for review. Pending the de-
termination OF the case. every officer of
the State charged with the enforcement
OF the law may be enjoined from the
performance Of his duties. and. as was
done in Minnesota, the chief law officer
OF the Commonwealth may be summariiy
punished for going into the State courts
to compel the enforcement of State law.
1t was 10 prevent this very thing. and
to secure obedience to law. that some
of the States felt impelled to enact stat
utes prescribing severe cumulative pen-
alties for the infraction of law. That
was done as last resort: and now that
the Supreme Court has declared against
the cumulative penalty as a practical
denial of the equal protection of the
laws. the States might as well submit
to statutory Federal regulation OF all
transportation lines. whether within or
without State boundaries. as to be COM
PEELED TO accept the expanded jurisdic-
ton of the Federal courts in the field Of
State regulation. The States are reduced
Well-nigh 10 helplessness, so far as the
railroads are concerned, by the logical
consequences of Justice Packham's de- !
cision
We are not concerned for the fate Of 4
the particular legislation annulled by the /
Supreme Court. 1t may have been i'll !
considered and unjust, as undoubtedly
some Of the rate laws are. and the at /
tempts Of certain States to limit the
Jurisdiction OF the Federal courts were
palpably unconstitutional But the
courts opinion goes far beyond the merits
of any specific statute. establishing and
extending the Federal jurisdiction over
State legislation to a degree that is
bound TO provoke resentment. Public |
opinion has already manifested itself
on the issue raised by Justice Peck
hams decision. The Nebraska RepubI- /
can platform of last year declared for
Federal legislation, or an amendment 10
the Constitution. II needful. forbidding
the Federal courts "from Issuing writs
OF Injunction against State officers
charged by the law with the enforcement