The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-03-29

 milder than in Minnesota, and there- fore that there might be difference growing out of that fact
 The truth is that the penalties upon the Louisville and Nashville and South and North railroads for violating the passenger act alone for a single day would amount to over $15,000,0oO. This says nothing whatever about the severe damages that might be allowed citizens for instituting suits, nor crim- iaa1 penalties upon officers, agents and employees. In three days time the en- tire value of all property of every kind and description owned by the Louisville and Nashville railroad in the state of Alabama would be absorbed by the penalties imposed for the violation of the passenger act alone if those penalties were constitutional. If the attorney general does not think these penalties sufficiently severe, I scarcely know what would satisfy him.
 l repeat, the decision of the supreme court of the United States does not af- feet the doctrine of states rights at all.
 An act of the legislature relating to the Police Commission in Birmingham was recently declared unconstitutional by our supreme court.
 An act relating to our local courts vas declared unconstitutional only a few years ago.
 There have been scores of acts of the legislature declared unconstitution- al by our supreme court in recent years. In fact the doctrine of states rights hinges upon the power of the courts to declare void an act of the legislature whenever it is in conflict with the constitution. state or federal. Unless this can be done this is not a government of laws but is a govern nient of men, and the proudest boast of an American citizen. and the dearsst privilege which he possesses, will be taken away from him whe it is once admitted that either the legis- lature or the executive, state or fed eral, is supreme in this country.
 Again, it has been said that the prac- tlcal effect of the decision of the su- preme court was to destroy the elev- enth amendment. Nothing whatever could be further from the truth. The cIeventh amendment simply provides ir substance that a state cannot he made defendant in a court of law or equity without it's consent. It mas heen held time and again that the truo construction of that amendment was that a suit could not be instituted against a state for the recovery of it's property or for the enforcement of it's obligations, even though it had elected to repudiate them, some have done. But it has also been held at all times that when legislature passed an un- constitutional act and specially or gen. erally provided for it's enforcement IVY any particular officers, those charged with the duty of enforcement either by the direct provisions of the statute or 3y the provisions of the general law on the subject could be enjoined there from; and that such a suit was not against the state but was against -rHe officers of the state seeking to inter- fere with the property of citizens uc- der the color of void enactments The eleventh amendment to the constitu- tion of the United States in no man. ner whatever conflicts with the recent tcision of the supreme court of Tho United States and 1t is not in the least degree affected by tn at decision. This is not question affecting the states property. or it's obligations in any sense. From the time of the decision in the case of Branch Bank vs. Osborn long prior to the civil war, until the present time, 1t has been uniformly beld that no state official could inte = fcre with the possession of private property under color of an unconsti- tutional act, and that if he attempted to do so he could be restrained by L court or equity or held personally liI- ble in court of law.
 l said to the joint committees of tho Eouse and senate having these bills in charge when the legislature was in ,sx- tra session that if they could pass con- additionally the laws which it was their proclaimed purpose to pass that is to terrorize the roads into an aban- donment of the protection of the courts or to impose such terms if they did go into the courts as would amount to a confiscation of all their property, that they would hurt the state worse than they would the roads.
 And in all seriousness I now assert that since it has been finally determ- ined that the courts of this country must be free and open to all of it's citizens and that the property of cor Doration is entitled to all of the pro- tection of the property of a private citizen, the state will reap greater benefit than any corporation of any character within its borders.