New-York tribune., 1908-03-24
STATE LAWS INVALID.
Continued from first pa9e.N


from reso-tng to the courts TO test the validity
of the legislation the result is the same as if
the law in terms prohibited the company from
seeking judicial construction OF laws which
deeply affect its rights.
THE MINNESOTA CASE.
The proceeding in Youngs case grew out of an
effort by the minnesota Federal Court May
81 last restrain Mr.. Young and other state
| officials from executing or attempting 10 exc
cute the rate law. Certain stockholders Of the
Northern Pacific Railway Company fled d suit
| at that time asking for injunction prohibit
ing the officials from carrying the law into
effect on the ground that the rate fixed was SO
low as to make returns to the company on its
investment impossible.
The injunction granted September 23
on the ground that the law was condscatory,
and its PRONUNCIATION was Immediately followed
by an action by Attorney General Young in the
Ramsey County State District Court, in which
the issuance of a writ of mandanus command
ing the Northern Pacific Company comply
with the law asked. The state court
Immediately issued the writ in compliance with
Mr. Young's petition, and this proceeding caused
a sharp conflict between the federal and state
courts MI Young summoned before the
former to give an account of his defiance of the
l-court's injunction. and failing to make a salts
factory explanation he was fined S1OO for con-
tempt or court and st the same time ordered
TO dismiss the case in the state court. Refusing
to pay the fine 'or dismiss the case. Mr.. Young
Immediately brought the case TO the Supreme
Court of the United States on a petition for
writ of habeas corpus He based his petition on
the grounds that the United States Circuit
Court had no Jurisdiction in the original pro-
ceeding because there was no diverse citizenship
and that the suit instituted against him as At
torney General was in effect a suit against the
state and not against him.
JUDGE PRITCHARD SUSTAINED.
The North Carolina case-that of Sheriff Hun
ter. of Buncombe County. and James H Wood,
a ticket agent Of the Southern RaiIway-at
tracted wide attention and the of
sharp conflict between the courts Of the United
States and those OF North Carolina. Wood was
| indicted. found guilty and sentenced to serve
thirty days the rock pile at Asheville the
charge of selling railroad tickets for more than
the maximum rate established by the state law.
He Immediately appealed to Judge Pritchard
Of the United States Circuit Court for the
Western District of North. Carolina. who
promptly issued a writ of habeas corpus order
ing Woods release by Sheriff Hunter This
action was the elimination Of several important
steps IN the controversy, beginning with the is
susnce of iniunctfons by Judge Pritchard against
the state officials prohibiting the carrying Of the
lowed by an address by Governor Glenn to the
superior courts of the state questioning Judge
Pritchard's authority and asking them to see
that indictments were found against the agents
Of the railroad company. In accordance with
this address A number Of arrests were made. SO
that Woods case became 2 test for many others,
So important did Judge Prtchsrd consider the
action Of the state authorities that he said In
his opinion:
IF the criminal prosecutions against the agents,
conductors and employees permitted 70 con-
tnue the managers Of the railroads cannot sue
cessfully operate their trains. carry the mails
or continue their usefulness as common carriers
doing an Interstate business
Considering the North Carolina case to have
been disposed of by the action Of the court in
the Minnesota case, Justice Peckham did not
elaborate MS views He said
Being detained in custody by virtue Of this
conviction by one OF the police courts of the
state, he had the right to apply for a writ Of
ha beas corpus to the United States Circuit
Judge and that judge had power 10 issue the
writ and discharge the prisoner under Section
753 of the Revised Statutes of the United States
as he then in custody for an act done pur-
suant 10 an order. process or decree of a court
or Judge of the United States. The writ being
properly issued, the Judge had the right and it
was his duty to examine into the facts, and had
jurisdiction TO discharge the petitioner under
the circumstances stated.
JUSTICE HARLAN DISSENTS
Justice Harlan deemed the case Of sufficient
importance TO Justify dissenting opinion of
twelve thousand words, taking strong ground in
support of the theory that the proceeding in the
Young case was a suit against the state. and
therefore not permissible under the Constitu-
ton He closed his opinion in the following
words.
Neither the words nor the policy of the
Eleventh Amendment will. under former de-
cisions Justify any order of a federal court the
necessary effect OF which will be to exclude
state from its courts Such an order at
tended by such results cannot [ submit, be sus
tanned consistently with the powers which the
states according to the uniform declara tions of
this court possess under the Constitution
am justified by what this court has heretofore
declared I'm now saying that the wise men who
framed the Constitution and who caused the
adoption of the Eleventh Amendment would he
startled by the suggestion that a state of the
Union can be prevented by an order of sub
ordinate federal court from being represented
the state in one of it's courts. and that such
Of the states as involved in their constitutional
immunity from the Judicial process OF the fed-
araI courts Except in the limited cases in which
they may constitutionally he made parties In
this coIrtp and would be attended by most per-
niCious results