The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-17
Constitutional Rights and
 Supreme Court Precedents
 NolD Uppernlost Questions

The special feature of the doctrine Is that no officer is Especially charged" with the enforcement of the law.
 That is why the enforcement of the rate acts adopted at the November ses- sion were scattered" and no State of fieer was directed to enforce them. They were left to be enforced by some citizen. The States attorneys are hop- ing now that their work has been suc- cessful and the acts drawn ;n their construction of the Fitts against Me- Gee case will stand the test of the courts. They are hoping that this is a way around the Fourteenth Amend ment.
 It Is their only hope.
 The attorneys for he roads in the matter of numbers, are richer in au- thortties, for they have four or live decisions of the Supreme Court. modi- flying or denying the doctrine laid down in the famous Alabama case There is, for instance. the case of Rea- gan against the Farmers Trust Com- pany, in which a Railroad Commission was enjoined from putting into effect rates adopted by the Texas Legisla- ture. Moreover that injunction was just as sweeping as the one Issued by Judge Jones. and of the same nature. All persons were enjoined from carrying the rates into effect. The railroads de- clare through their attorneys that the decision in the case of Smyth against Ames from Nebraska sets up another doctrine of the same sort and that the right to protect property Is plainly set forth in the case of Prout against Stary. H@
 Their resources of the Federal Court fight are at least more numerous than those brought forward by the State.
 stand on Constitution.
 The attorneys for the road have for tiled themselves on the claim that the Constitution assures them, with every citizen of the United States, that their property shall not be taken except by due process of law. They say the State proposes through an act of the Legislature to do that any they sub- init that Legislature can not deprive a person or a corporation of the assu- rance given them by the Constitution
 They claim that the rate acts, in their enforcement would be depriva- ton of property without due process of law. They declare that the State went so far as to erect barriers and obstacles to their going Into court and they point to the penalty provisions. This feature of the rate litigation is being steadily emphasized by the at- torneys for the railroads. They point oub CHAt AA tHOg buOutd BO tut0 the court and fight the cases in the only way provided by the acts that the Louisville and Nashville alone would be subjected to penalties amounting to at least $622,0o0. .0O0--a fact which Is prohibitive of such course and which establishes the claim of the roads that there is no due process of law
 In the yesterdays hearing each side had 8 chance. For the State Horace Stringfellow occupied the morning ses- sion of the court. The afternoon ses- sion was occupied with the argument of T. M. Cunningham, Jr., representing the Central of Georgia and speaking for the roads. The same large crowd was present and notwithstanding the technical nature of the arguments the speakers were given close and search ing attention.
 The speakers today will be Gregory T.. Smith for the roads and Judge s. b. Weakley for the State. 1t is hardly probable that Senator John c. Spooner will have an opportunity to present his argument at today's hearing. If he does not he will speak at the session of the court tomorrow morning. Sem