The San Francisco call., 1908-03-24
STRIKES BLOW At
THE STATE COURTS
Supreme Tribunal Knocks Out
the Validity of Two Cent
Rate Law
Justice Harlan Dissents and
Says the Decision May
Prove Disastrous

COipuc IclcScAHS MIN lEOAA lHt penalty
imposed by the United States district
court of Minnesota on the charge of
contempt of court in instituting a pro-
ceeding in a state court for enforce
ment of the railroad rate law, after
the federal court has prohibited such a
course, and in affirming the decision
of Judge Pritchard of the United States
circuit court for the western district
of North Carolina, discharging from
imprisonment James H Wood, ticket
agent of the Southern railway at
Asheyille, after he had been sentenced
by the Asheville police court to serve
q term on the rockpile on the charge
Of collecting for ticket on that road
q greater price than was permitted by
the state railroad law. the supreme
court OF the United States today added
another TO the series of decisions which
have rendered notable the present term
of that court.
In both cases the right of the states
to fix rates for railroad, transportation
was the issue, and both involved con-
fiicts between the federal and the state
courts. The decision in each case was
opposed both to the states and to their
courts.
The opinion of the court in both
cases was announced by Justice Peck
ham. and, with the exception of Jus
tice Harlan. all the other members of
the court stood behind him in the an
nouncement OF the courts finding. Jus
tice Harlan read dissenting opinion
in the Young case, in which he took
the view that the suit was practically
a proceeding against the state, there
fore permissible under the eleventh
amendment to the constitution He,
therefore, characterized the opinion as
era making in the history of the COURT
said It had the effect OF closing the
courts OF state against the state
itself and predicted that the result
would be disastrous.
The two cases were so similar that
both practically were decided in one
opinion. The pronouncement was made
in the Minnesota case.
Justice Peckhams opinion was au-
thoritatively outlined as follows:
The court has decided: That by reason OF
the enormous penalties provided in the rate
laws By way Of fines against the companies
and imprisonment of their agents and employees
the companies are in effect prevented from ever
questioning the validity Of those laws, the
nent Of agents in case the companies failed in
their defense was teo much TO undertake In
order 70 obtain a judicial decision Of the cues
Such laws are therefore held unconstitutional
as they prevented toe eesnpanies from rescrting
70 the courts and therefore deprived them OF
equal protection Of laws.
The question Of sufGeiency OF the rates TO
enable the company 10 obtain some return 10 It's
stock holders for their investments has for
many years been held TO be one for the courts
70 decide. as it would be violation of the con-
stifutioD OF the United States TO TX rates so
low TO be eonhscarory IL enforced
The laws providing rates for uansporra tion
Of passengers and freight In the two cases under
consideration have been held by the corrrs below
to be so low as 10 be substantially confiseatory
and should therefore not be enforced until after
further trials. The courts had jurisdiction 10
make such order.
It also for years has been held that n
suit is not one against the state. although it
prevents state officer from bringing suits for
the enforcement OF a state enactment which fixed
rates so low TO be conAscatory and which act
was therefore violation OF the constitution OK
the United States, and this principle is reiter-
sted and again decided in these cases.
The Jurisdiction OF the federal courts in such
ment is alleged TO be violation OF the con
Stirution of the United States, and in such
jurisdiction equally with the state courts, as
the constitution OF the United States Is by its
anything in state legislation or Law TO the con
trsry notwithstanding, and there is no usurpation
OF jurisdiction in such event.
The same duties rest upon the state courts
and the party had his choice OF forum without
any invidicus distinction agaiost the state courts
his choice Of the latter.
/ When a federal court has taken jurisdiction
of cases before any proceeding in state court
/ has been commenced the former court has au-
fhority TO decide the and TO eBjon any
person from proceeding in state court until
! This is also well established right CT court
OF equity, and no new ground It taken IN this
case
The proceeding in Youngs case grew
out fan effort BY the Minnesota fed
eraI court May 81 last TO restrain Young
and other state officials from executing G
4 or attempting to execute the rate law.
Certain stockholders Of the Northern
! Pacific railway company filed a suit al
the time asking for an Injunction To
prohibit the state officials from carrying
the law into effect on the ground that the
rate fixed was so low as TO make inn
possible returns to the company on its
| investment
The Injunction was granted Septen-
Der %, on the ground that the law was
confiscatory and its PRONUNCIATION was
I Immediately followed by the COM
mencement of an action BY Attorney
4 General Young IN the Ramsey county
state district court in which that court
was asked to direct the issuance of a writ
OF mandamus commanding the North
| ern Pacifc company to comply with the
rateiaw. The state court Immediately is
| sued the writ IN compliance with
Youngs petition. and this proceeding
| precipitated a sharp conflict between
| the federal and state courts
Young was summoned before the
! former to give an account of his def
ance of the courts injunction and
falling to make a satisfactory expla-
nation. he was subjected to a fine oi
! 500 for contempt of court and at the
| same time ordered to dismiss the cass
/ in the state court.
Refusing either TO pay the fine oil
dismiss the case, Young immediately
took the case TO the supreme court ot
the United States on petition for
1 writ of habeas corpus.
i ST. PAUL. March 2s.--Attorne,
General Young, on learning of tn,
supreme courts decision, said that ss
| far as his case was concerned n.
\ would simply pay his fine Of 500
4 Young. in a statement today, said:
IT would seem that the decision Of the majos
ifv orerfnrns all former decisions TO the i'm
munsfy OF states from suft. and in effect re
i pezls the eleventh amendment Ii state in ex
ercisiue It's governmental powers be con
trolled by federal injuBctions sued out BY rail
road companies the state governments might a
well be abandoned and the inferior fedora
courts be placed 10 charge of all state affairs.
/ MARRIAGE LICENSES