The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-03-24
NORTH CAROLINA CASE
 ALSO FINALLY SETTLED
Justice Peckham Holds That Minnesota Railroad Rate Law Has Too Heavy Penalties, and North Carolina
 Rate Is conflscatory.

washington, March 23-1n refusing to grant to Attorney General Young of Min nesota, a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from the penalty imposed by the United States circuit court for the District of Minnesota on. the charge of contempt of court in instituting proceeding in a state court for the enforcement of the railroad rate law after the federal court had prohibited such course, and in affirming the decision of Judge Pritch- ard of the United States circuit court of the western district of North Carolina |discharging from imprisonment James H Wood, ticket agent of the Southern rail- way at Asheville, after he had been sen tenced by the Asheville police court to serve term on the rock pile on the charge of collecting for a ticket on that road price which was not then per mitted by the state railroad law, the supreme court of the United States today added another to the series of decisions which have rendered notable the present Eerm of that court.
 In both cases the effort of the states to fix rates aor ralroa~ transportation was the issue and both involved conflicts be- Tween the federal and the state courts. lrhe decision in each case was opposed both to the states and to their courts The opinion of the court in both cases kas announced by Justice Peckham and With the exception of Justice Harlan all The other members of the court stood behind him in the announcement of the foures finding. Justice Harlan read a tlssenting opinion in the Young case, in Which he took the view that the suit Fas practically proceedings against the tate and tariff not permissible under the Eleventh amendment to the constitution He, therefore, characterized the opinion Is era-naking in the history of the court laying that 1t had the effect of closing he courts of a state against the state sself. and predicted that the result would he disastrous.
 tThe two cases were so similar that pth practically were decided in one opin- bn. The principal pronouncement was hade in the Minnesota case.
 Peckham's Decision.
 Judge Peckham outlined the decision E follows;
 l"rhe court has decided that by reason the enormous penalties provided in be rate laws by way of fines against be companies and imprisonments of their gents and employees, the companies are effect prevented from ever questioning ke validity of those laws, as the risk I connscation of property and imprison- lent of agents in case the companies filed in their defense was too much to ndertake in order to obtain a judicial lcision of the question of such validity. 'Sucn laws are, therefore, held uncon- btutional, as they prevented the com Inies from resorting to the courts, and kerefore deprived them of the equal pro- etion of the laws.
 1.-The question of the sufficiency of the tes to enable the company to obtain hme return to it's stockholders for their kestments has for many years been Eld to be one for the courts to decide it would be a violation of the con- itution of the United States to fix rates low as to be confiscatory If enforced tThe laws providing rates for transpor- Hion of passengers and freight in two Hes under consideration have been held k the courts below to be so low as to @ substantially confscatory, and should hrefore not be enforced until after fur Fer trials. The courts had Jurisdiction make suI-l an order.
 Suit Not Against States.
 Fit has also for many years been Id that a suit Is not one against tn e tte, although it prevents state of
 br from bringing suits for the en- scement of state enactment which sd rates so low as to be confisca-
 gy and which act was therefore a 5lation of the constitution of the
 Ated States, and this principle is re- lated and again decided in these les.
 lit is no more a suit gainst the state In is a proceeding which compels 1n lcer of the state to produce person
 his custody charged with a crime
 tinst the state before federal court
 fudge who thereupon discharges
 In person on the ground that his im-
 Bonment is in violation of the fed
 constitution. Such a proceeding
 been held valid for many years
 trhe jurisdiction of the federal
 Erts in such cases is only exercised
 bre the state enactment is alleged
 Nbe a violation of the constitu lior
 the United States and in such case
 Is proper those courts to take
 Isdiction ( ..ally with the state
 fts as the constitution of the United
 les Is by it's own provisions the
 feme law of the land, anything ir
 state constitution or law to the
 ErdTy nOlWllnSl duQ LneTe ll
 lisVrpation of Jurisdiction in such
 the fsame duties rest upon the state
 It's, land the party had his choice
 Epru4n without any invidious dis
 3ion{ against the state courts and
 kvor%,of the federal courts because W Is choMice of the latter.
 / X Prefecture of Courts.
 Ehen Sfederal court has taken E3 Fiction ibf case before any pro E hgs in state court has been com-
 Ed, tr former court has authority
 eitef th4zease and to enjoin any
 hN ,lrfoceeding in state court fM <Ehl court has proceeded M sMThis Is also a well es- N " &t of court of equity
 M. bround is taken in this sh tl turned almost entirely D stMalty provisions of the