The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1908-03-24
Railroad Laws
DEMONSTRATIONS
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES HANDS DOWN I'M
PoRTANT DECISION.

WASHINGTON u. Vs. AldISu Efs
ACTS (of State Legislatures) relating
to the enforcement of estate railroad)
rates, either Of freight or passengers.
by imposing sucn enormous fines and
possible imprisonment as a result
of an unsuccessful effort to test the
validity of the Jaws themselves, are
unconstitutional on their face without
regard to the question of the INSULT
cheney Of those rates"
In the foregoing words, except those
lnclosed in parenthesis. which make
the meaning clear. the Supreme Court
of the United States, Justice Peckham
speaking. yesterday declared invalid
the state railroad rate laws of the
States of Minnesota and North Caro-
lima. The Court did not go into tho
question of the insuficiency of the
rates because that was not the ques.
tor before 1t.
Thr sole question was as to whether
Federal cirt nit courts in North Caro-
lima AID Minnesota had acted in an
illegal manner in issuing injunctions
sqafasL the enforcement of the dras-
tls legislation onnc.t d by those States
designed, MS the State lawmakers
thought, to prevent the railroads TAX
ing the question of the validity of
those rates into the Federal courts.
Facts In the Two Gases.
In North Carolina Judge Pritchard
issued a writ of habeas corpus re-
leasing the ticket agent of the South
ern Railroad at Asheyille, who had
been condemned to serve in the chain
gang for daring to sell ticket In ac-
cordance with the order of the Judge,
which the police Judge at Asheville
thought was in violation of the state
law.
In the Minnesota case Attorney Cen
er"l Young appied for an alternative
writ of mandamr5 renp ring the North
ern pacific Railroad to publish end
observe the rates established by the
state Legislatures enactment. He did
that after the Federal Circuit Court
had enjoined the railroad company
from putting those rates into effect,
which injunction was granted upon the
request of stockholders of the rail-
road company, who claimed they were
about to be deprived of their property
without due process of law by the el.
forcenient of unreasonable, unjust and
conRscatory rates.
The Federal court committed the
Attorney Gencmi for contempt. Mr..
Young applied for a writ of habeas
corpus. Upon its denial he applied to
the supreme Court. Under the Min
nesota decision The Attorney General,
in theory, goes to jail. while the North
Carolina ticket AGENTS are freed from
the custody of the keeper of the chain
gang.
Federal Court Can EnIoln.
The decision Is that Federal cow
can enjoin the enforcement Of strte
law at any time when those who feel
aggrIeved set up Federal question,
as the compliments in these two
cases did, namely. that they were
about to be deprived of their property
without due process of law and to be
denied the equal protection Of the
laws of the State.
The court held that the attempt OF
the States to prevent aggrieved per-
sons going into the courts by the inn
position of enormous penalties for fall
ure to obey the statutes made them
demonstrations on their face.
Justice Harlan alone dissented from
the opinion, chiefly because he thinks
the court reversed decisions by itself
in otner cases.
The decisions do not. so far as can
now be determined have any bearing
on the rate-maklng power of the Fed.
eral Government It is believed, how.
ever, that much OF the State railroad
legislation enacted during the last two
years Will fall when it reaches the su
preme Court for reasons that controls
ed the court in. these cases.