The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1908-03-24

road Company filed a suit at the same
time asking for an Injunction prohib-
iting the s&te oficiais from carrying
the law intoNffect.
ground that the law was confiscatory
and its PRONUNCIATION was immediately
followed by the commencement Of an
action by Attorney General Young in
the Ramsey county state district court
in which that court was asked to d.
rect the issuance OF writ of mandarn-
us. commanding the Northern Pacific
Company to comply with the rate Law.
The State court Immediately issued the
writ in compliance with Mr.. Young's
petition and this proceeding precipit-
ated a sharp conflict between the fed
eral and the state courts.
Mr.. Young was summoned before the
former to give an account of his de-
iance of the courts Injunction and
falling to make a satisfactory explain
alton, he was subjected to a fine Of
500 for contempt of court and at the
sane tive rrsiei ell 70 dlsgn.ss Tie cas-
in the State court.
Refusing either to pay the fine or
to dismiss the case, Mr.. Young inn
mediately brought the case to the SUI
preme court OF the United States on
petition for a writ Of habeas corpus.
He based his petition upon the grounds
that the United States circuit court
was without Jurisdiction in the orig
inal proceeding because there was no
diverse citizenship and that the suit
Instituted against him as attorney gen
eral was In effect a suit against the
State and not against him.
North Carolina Case.
The North Carolina case that
of Sheriff Hunter. of Bunconlbe coun-
ty versus Agent Wood of the South
ern Railway, attracted much attention
during the greater part of last summer
and was for a time the cause of
sharp conflict between the courts Of
the United States and those Of North
Carolina Wood was indicted ana
found guilty and sentenced to serve
term Of thirty days on the rock Pile
at Ashevihe, on the charge of selling
railroad tickets for more than the
maximum rate as established by. the
statute. He applied to Judge Prttch-
ard sitting In the United States circuit
court for the western district Of North
Carolina and the latter promptly Is
sued a writ of habeas corpus order
ing Woods release by Sheriff Hunter.
This action of the court was the Gull
mination of several important steps IN
the controversy, beginning with the
issuance of injunctions by Judge
Pritchard against the State, prohibit
feet. This proceeding was followed
by an address of Governor Glenn to
the Superior Courts of the State, ques-
tioninK Pritchard's authority ana ask
ing them to see that indictments were
found against the agents OF the rail-
road company. In accordance with
this address, number of arrests were
made so that the Woods case became
a test case for many others.
So important did Judge Pritchard
consider the action of the State courts
that he said in his opinion:
s'If the criminal prosecutions against
the agents conductors and employees
are permitted to continue, the man
ayers Of the railroads canot success
fully operate their trains. carry the
mails or continue their usefulness as
common carriers doing an interstate
business"
Considering the North Carolina case
to have been disposed of by the action
Of the court in the Minnesota case,
Justsce Peckham did not elaborate his
views in the former proceeding.
Being detained in custody BY vir-
tue of this conviction by the police
courts 81 the state, he has the right
to apply for a writ of habeas corpus
to the United States Circuit Judge,
and that Judge had power to issue the
writ and discharge the prisoner under
Section 753 of the Revised Statutes OF
the United States as he was then In
custody for. an act done pursuant 70
an order. process or decree OF q court g.,l
ar fudge of the United States. The
writ being properly issued, the judge
had the right and 1t was his duty to
examine into the acts, and had Juris-
diction to discharge the petitioner UNI
der the circumstances stated.
Justice Harlan's Opinion.
Justice Harlan deemed the cases OF
sufficient importance to justify a lz,OOV-
| word dissenting opinion, taking strong
| gronnds IN support of the theory that
| the proceeding In the Young case was
a suit against the State, and, therefore
| NOT permissible under the constitution,
| He closed his statement in the foilow-
| Ing words:
Neither the words nor the policy
of the eleventh amendment VIII, unaer
onr former decisions, Justify any order
~ Federal Court, the necessary ef-
| fact Of which will be to exclude q
| state from it's own courts. SUCH an
order attended by such results cannot
| 7 submit be sustained consistently
with the powers which this state ac-
| cording to the uniform rule OF THIS
court. possesses under the constitution.
| am illstiaed by what this court mas
the Wise men Who framed the consul
t,tion and who caused the adoption
~ the eleventh amendment, Woulo
lave heen startled by the suggestion
| that a State of the Union can De prs
vented by an order of a suooroiha.s :
Trederal court from being represen.SIut
~, ire Attorney General in sur
Sronsyht by the State in one OF Hs
o10n courts: and that such. an oIust
U,ould he inconsistent with the oishlss
~ the states as inviting the cist
t,,tional immunity from the suoloia at
srocess of the Federal Courts NeA1eR 80.
- tba limited cases in which they "as
aonstitutionally be made parIes, -,
| tbis court), and would be attehoeu ~
aIn1ost precarious results.
Former Decisions Overturnsu.
CT paul Mimi, March 2S.-Ihe :,
80 of the United states district eo1t
w" AEtnnesota. which resulted IN Az
% General Young being citea TOT
! contempt, was the result OF ene ,.;ns
| road corporation in Ninnesota It,
inc Injunction suits against the 60.
aasota Railroad and Warehouse Sonl
roIssion and certain shippers 70 Pie
vent them from pntting into eHeee
| commodIty and freight rates anu th'
two cent passenger fare estaoNshe'
-, the last legislature. After reaalnt
Instice Harlan's opinion. MI. houhs
80 the Associated Press the toiloF'
ing statement: .ha
@From the fragmentary report ina
Save seen of the decision OF the ma
It, If the court. and the opinion o.