The Washington herald., 1908-03-24

a sweeping decision affecting every
State which has adopted drastic anti
railroad legislation was handed down by
the United States Supreme Court yester-
day.
The Minnesota railroad law was de-
clared unconstitutional. In a shorter
opinion the court made similar declara-
tion with reference to the North Carolina
railroad law.
Eight of the nine justices joined in
these rulings of the court. The courts
opinion is regarded in some quarters here
as pointing directly TO the nconstitu-
sionality OF the Federal railroad-rate act.
Harlan Alone Dissents.
BY a bench unanimous. except for JUS
tice Harlan, the court held that where
such laws affected the rights of the rail-
roads or their stockholders. guaranteed
by the Constitution OF the United States.
the subordinate Federal courts had au-
thority not only 10 hear the claims
raised. but also TO stay the execution Of
such laws. notwithstanding the prohi-
bition contained in the eleventh amend
ment against the institution of suits
against a State.
In other words, the court decided in
unequivocal language that as between the
prohibition of the eleventh amendment,
behind which the States had taken refuge
in enacting such Legislation. and the
property rights protected by the four
teenth amendment the latter was para
mount where such rights were invaded.
Effect of Decision.
The decision win have the effect OF
bringing to the courts for review any
so-called confiscatory railroad rates
enacted by the States. despite extraordi-
nary penalties in some cases laid down
10 prevent such a review. Local Federal
courts will have the power TO suspend
the operation Of such State laws pending
@ judicial inquiry as to their legality.
II is a pronounced setback for the ex-
9reme advocates Of State rights. who
have contended that the Federal courts
IN view OF the eleventh amendment, were
without Jurisdiction 10 interfere with the
execution of State laws.
Yesterdays decision, while primarily
upon the rates fixed by Minnesota for
the transportation Of certain commodi-
ties within that State also carried with ii
a somewhat similar case involving the
rate law OF North Carolina, where. last
summer. the conflict OF authority be-
tween the State and Federal courts was
so acute that there were threats by
Gov. Glenn to call out the State troops to
enforce its law
Minnesota Rate Law Case.
In the Minnesota case the controversy
arose over the enactment, first, OF the
2-cent rate law and the excessive penal
ties that were provided against the rail-
roads or their officers who refused to
comply with its terms-S5OOO fine and five
years Imprisonment for each refusal to
sell a ticket at the rate named.
Then followed what were known as the
commodity rates, TO have gone into effect
June 1 last, reducing substantially the
rates on certain merchandise and pre-
scribing the minimum weights for car
loads. Before that date however, GER
tain stockholders of the Northern Pacific
road brought suit in the Federal court
for the district OF Minnesota TO enjoin
the attorney general of the State from
putting the rates into effect
That official appeared for the special
purpose of objecting 10 the jurisdiction
of the court. claiming il was without au-
thority. because the suit was in effect.
one against a State, prohibited by the
eleventh amendment. This demurrer was
overruled.
Attorney General Arrested.
An order was issued enjOining the en-
forcement Of the rates until il could be
determined judicially whether or not they
were conhscatory, as claimed by the
stockholders.
Attorney General Young, however, paid
no attention to the injunction. The next
day he instituted in the State courts pro-
ceedings 20 compel the Northern Pacific
TO adopt the commodity rates prescribed.
When this action was brought 10 the
attention of the Federal court Young was
arrested. After a hearing in which he
again set up his immunity under the
eleventh amendment. he was adjudged in
contempt of the Federal court, fined 500.
and committed to the custody of the
United States marshal until paid and he
should purge himself by withdrawing the
suit from the State court.
Applied to Supreme Court.
Instead he applied to the Supreme Court
for a writ of habeas corpus for his re-
lease. The case was argued in December
and attracted wide attention. 1t was the
first Of the cases involving the Federal
courts TO interfere with the execution Of
state laws affecting railroad rates.
Attorney General Hadley. of Missouri,
took part in the arguments Briefs were
filed in the case OF the Southern Railway,
because Of the similar questions involved
in its controversy with the State of North
Carolina, and by the public service cor
poration Of New York. on account of the
S0-cent gas case which has been decided
In the interim
The opinion of the court yesterday de-
iivered by Justice Peckham stated the
case with ninuteness
Justice Harlan delivered vigorous dis
sent. The action Of the Federal court IN
laying violent hands upon the attorney
Continued on PHEe B, Column q.