The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-30

road commissioners in respect to rates and charges. The parties interested sand ana tbey wSo nse the o bridge I the other. one interested to have the charges maintained as they have been. piiaDce % ee with t tse e order fo of the railway in interest in respect to whom the de- ssss wili gpsfats ,Ss s,s,. t Tas nsa ursesSi sirsct pecuniary interest in the result of the litigation by virtue first, of It's posei- ble liability 1sr the costs. and secondly, to % the %extre8e. there might De penal ties imposed which would when coi- lected possibly enure to the school Court decided that 1t did not alter the nature of the suit. It said; "What- ever may be the results of any subse- sect g nf tbr suit is to obtain
 decree of the court commanding the I railway to comply with the orders Of the commission. Such decree Is sim ilar to the ordinary decrees of court of equity. It is familiar rule that a court of equity may enforce compli- ance with it's orders and decrees by penalties upon the delinquent. So Is sufiicient to make the State the real party plaintiff, 1t would follow that In Missouri the State is the real party I plaintiff in every equity suit because | in every equity suit penalties may be l imposed. Neither can it be held that 1 the States voluntary assumption of the railroad commissioners makes 1t the real party plaintiff. That is sim 1 ply an incidental matter and does not determipe Its relation to the state. any l the judge. the fees of the juror, or any l other expense of the litigation. We are of opinion, therefore. that the par | e oH t,, fka hA 9oi inf l is the real party plaintiff, and that the | voluntary assumption by the State of 1 the costs in some contingencies of the l litigation, or the indirect and remote l pecuniary results which may follow l from disobedience to the orders of the court. do not make 1t the party 10 and in whose favor decree for the | plaintiff will effectively operate"
 The same ruling wss made n smyth southern. Railway Company, POP U. S. 55s. the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine of the earlier cases. It l the biii may be said to have been the l restraining of illegal interference with the property and inter-state business of the raiiway company; The assert l the object of the bili to enjoin, being based upon the asumed authority of | the State which the bill alleged to be
 n tyioistl0n Ds the rishts h of the rsi l stitution of the United States. Tn this aspect the suit was not in any prop l CT sense against the state" Scott v. McGhee. l72 U. S. BIS, 61s
 statemenfs of Respondents Legal Pro- l Ii. Respondents answed that the l reason of these decision cannot con- tro1 the disposition of the supplemental bills since the. officials whose action was enjoined in those eases were l of the laws That this feature Is wholly wanting in the supplemental l bills. though it Is positively ayerred l in them that the State officials will en- I force the rate legislation; that the l oi5iciaIs who are defendants have now l no power to enforce the rate legisla- supplemental bills are suits against q l sovereign State of which this court has no Jurisdiction. They Re furth ' CT. and urge that this is true also of they were filed. they were not suits l against the State; because subsequent to their filing. the legislature has l powor to enforce the rate leRislation.
 and repealed the legislation which permitted them to be made defendants 1 reasonableness of the rates. Irrespec- tive of these defenses they assert that the due process of law for which the Constitution provides is satisfied here.
  | ramedv at law for the full protec- tion of the right asserted, If. in each J case. as 1t arises. complainants are afforded, in that particular case. fair trial in the court of justice according to the usual modes of procedure appli- cable to cases at law. While they do trins as the court here puts 1t, they inevitably deny either that the usual remedies of equity in such cases form any part Of the Flaw. of the land" | IA tnvoke:~ or. else, that the State. iu l It's discretion, in ordering persons and things within its dominions. may so the execution of a statute. that no court can prevent its immediate en- forcement. although the statute be uH- 1 constitutional, and the officer be about t0 execute it, although the arrest of such action of the official be absolutely necessary lat the threshold of the lite fEo destruction R rhep rsiss msnv snS nther important questions which will be noticed in the order of their presen- By None of the Tests Can the BtIls
 Dc Held to Be Suits Against the
 Alabama Is sovereign State, except In the particulars wherein It's rights and powers of such are curtailed by the Constitutition of the United States The full sovereignty of Alabama is not of it's government. or. in ali of them eombined: since they have retained some of their power. Constitution of | Alabama. Section 36. The government l of the State of Alabama is not to be | confounded with the State itself. One
 iE the servant, the other is the sover-
 sign. Under our free institutions. no oficial can truthfully declare. '"I am the State"
 The Constitution of the State dis tributes the sovereign power of the l people among three coordinate de- l partments. giving so much of that | power. as deemed requisite to the &C., l complishment of the task committed 1 to 1t. These three departments com | bined, save as limited by the State and Federal Constitutions. represent | the sovereignty of the people of the Elents are subject to the checks and | limitations of the Constitution of the | State. Within the scope of their del- | egated authority. the acts of State offi- cers are the States acts When they l transgress the limits of their trust l 1t is not the State which acts, flor | as 1t can act and speak only by law. whatever it does say and do must be lawful" but 1t is "tho mere wrong and trespass of individuals who false | ly speak and act in It's name" Poin- | dexter V. Greenhow. 1l4 U. s. 2S4 If | the acts of officers of these depart ments. outside of the scope of the | power entrusted. cannot be effectively | stayed wh en necessary to save the Iib- | erty and property of the citizen from l illegal invasion under color of State ] laws. because such proceedings are 1 suits against the State. which the cit-