The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-24
JUSTICE PECKHAM'S OPINION
 IN THE YOUNG APPEAL
Judge Pritchard Upheld for Dis
 charging James H. Wood.
Justice Harlan Read . Disseatsns Opinion In The Yeuss Case And Characterised The opsnss. ..
 Era-masias In His-

Washington. March a3--rn refusing to grant to Attorney General Youns' of Minnesota, a writ of hsbeas corpus releasing him from the penalty imposea by the United States Circuit Court Tor the district of Minnesota. on the charge of contempt of court in in- stituting proceeding in state court for the enforcement of the raiiroaa rate law, after the Federal court nae prohibited such q course. and in af- firnling the decision of Judge Prit- chard of the United states Circuit Court. for the Western district of North Carolina. dischArging from in1- prisonment James H. Wood, ticket agent of the Southern Railway At Asheville. after he had been sen fenced by the AshcvilIs police court 10 serve a term on the rock pile oE the charge of collecting for a tiekas on that road a greater price than va permitted by the state railroad law the Supreme Court of the United states today added another to the series os decisions which have rendered notable the present term of that court
 Tn both cases. the report Of the states to fix rates for railroad trans portatfon was the issue and both inc voived conflicts between the FederAa and the state courts. The decision n each case was opposed both to the states and to fNeir courts. rho opinion of the court in both cases was announced by Justice peckhnm and with the exception of Justice har- ian, all the other members of tho court stood behind him in the an- nouncement of the courts finding.
 PredEcta Disastrous Resulsn.
 Justice Harlan read dissenting opinion In the Young case In whick 1 he took the view that the suit wal practically a proceeding against ths state and therefore not permissible nnder the eleventh amendment to the constitution. He therefore character 1 izea the opinion as era making in tnh history of the court saying that lt had the effect Of closing the courts cf 2 state against the state Itself, and pre- dicted that the result would be dis astroEs.
 The two cases were 60 similar thus both practically were decided n rne opinion. The principal pronouncencnt was made in the Minuesots case
 Judge Pecisham outlined the decision
 .@rhe court has decided That ny reason of the enormous penalties pra- vided in the rate laws by way Of fines against the companies and imprisoti- ments of their agents and employees. l the companies are in effect prevented from ever questioning the validity pr those laws, as the risk of confiscafion of property and Imprisonment or agents in case the companies failed in their defense was too much to undertake 1t in order to obtain judicial decision of the question ox such validity.
 .such laws. are. therefore. held un. constitutional as they prevented the companies from resorting to the courts and therefore deprived them of tho equal protection of the laws
 'The question of the sufficiency or | the rates to enable the couipauy Co ! obtain some return to it's stockholders Tor their investments. has for many | years been held to be one for the I courts to decide, as it would be n violation of the constitution of the I United States to fix rates so low as to be confiscatory enforced. Were C0nnEseaasKys
 'aThe laws providing rates for | transportation of passengers and | freight in two cases under consldera- tion have been held by Che courts below to be so low as to be Buhstan- tially confiscatory. and should there fore rot be enforced until after fury ] ther trials. The courts had jurisdic- ton to make such an order.
 
 held that . suit is not one against tho state, although 1t prevents a state officer from bringing suits for the enforcement of state enactment which fixed rates SO low as to be con fiscatory and which act was therefore a violation of the constitution of the United States and this principal iS reiterated and again decided in these cases
 Tt is no more a suit against the state than Is a proceeding which ccm- peIs an offlcer of the state to produce a person in his custody. charged with a crime against the State. before a federal court or judge who thereupon discharges such prisoner on the ground that his Imprisonment is in violation of the federal constitution. Such Q proceeding has been held valid for many years past.
 'aThe jurisdiction of the federal courts in such cases Is only exercised where State enactment Ia alleged to be a violation of the constitution of the United States, and in such case it 10 proper for those courts to take juris- dlction equally with the State courts as the constitution of the United States Is by It's own provisions. the supreme law of the land. anything In any State constitution or law Co the contrary notwith standing. and there Is no usurpation of jurisdiction in such event.
 "The same duties rest upon the State court and the party has tls choice of forum without any lnvidious distinction against the State courts and in favor of the federal courts he- cause of hls choice of the latter.
 No New Ground.
 When a federal court has taken Jurisdiction of a case before aay pro- ceeding in a state court has been commenced. the former court has au- thority to decide the case and to en- join any person from proceeding h a state court until the federal court has proceeded to judgment. This ls alsa a well established right of a court ot equity and no new ground is taken ln this case"
 The opinion turned almost entirely