The morning journal-courier., 1908-03-24
STATE RATE LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Supreme Court, in Notable De- cision, Nullifies Acts of
 North Carolina and
 Minnesota.
CHIEF JUSTICE DlssENTs
Declares Opinion Closes States Courts Against Itself, and Predicts Disastrous COnse-
 quences.

to grant to Attorney General Young of Minnesota a writ of habeas corpus re- leasing him from the penalty imposed by the United States circuit court for the district of Minnesota on the charge of contempt of court in istituting a proceeding in a State court for the en- forcement of the railroad rate law after the federal court had prohibited such a course, and in affirming the de- cision of Judge Pritchard of the Unit ed States circuit court for the western district of North Carolina, discharging from imprisonment James H. Wood, d. ticket agent of the Southern Railway at Asheville, after he had been sen fenced by the Asheville police court to serve a term on the rock pile on the charge of collecting for ticket on that road a greater price than was permit ted by the State railroad law, the SUI preme court of the United States to- day added another to the series of de- cisions 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 Justice Harlan all the other members of the court stood behind him in the an- nouncement of the courts finding. Jus tice Harlan read a dissenting opinion of 12,000 words in the Young case, in which he took the view that the suit was practically a proceeding against the State and, therefore not permissi- be under the eleventh amendment to the constitution. He therefore charac- terized the opinion as era a-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 ont opinion. The principal pronouncemen, was made in the Minnesota case.
 Justice Peckhams opinion was au- thoritatively outlined as follows:
 'The court has decided: That by req sen of the enormous penalties provid. ed in the rate laws, by way of fines against the companies, and imprison. ment of their agents and employees. the companies were in effect prevented from ever questioning the validity o thos laws, as the risk of confiscatior of property and Imprisonment O agents in case the companies failed il their defense was too much to under take in order to obtain a judicial de cision of the question of scuh validity
 Such laws are therefore held uncon stitutional as they prevented the com panies from resorting to the courts and therefore deprived them of tn equal protection of the laws.
 "The question of the sufficiency o the rates to enable the company to ob tain some return to its stockholders fo their investment has for many year been held to be one for the courts t decide, as 1t would be violation O the constitution of the United State to fix rates so low as to be confiscator
 if enforced.
 "The laws providing rates for trans pcrtation of passengers and freight i the two cases under consideration hay so low as to be substantially confisca tory, and shodld therefore not be en forced until after further trials. Tn courts had jurisdiction to make sue an order.
 The opinion turned almost entirel upon the penalty provisions of the rat laws and the courts views on tha point were stated in the following ex tract from the opinion:
 For disobedence to the freight aC the officers, directors, agents and em ployes of the company are made guilt of misiemeanor, and upon conyiC tion each may be punished by impris onment in the county jail for perio not exceedingly ninety days Each viC lation would be a separate offense an therefore might result in imprisonmer of the various agents of the compan who would dare disoosy for term ( ninety days each for each offense. Dis obedience to the passenger rate aC renders the party guilty of felony an subject to a fine not exceeding fiy thousand dollars or Imprisonment l the State prison for a period not ez ceeding five years, or both fine and in prisonment. The sale of each tickt above the price permitted by the at would be a violation thereof.
 Tt would be difficult, if not impo' sible for the company to obtain officer agents or employees willing to carry Q it's affairs except in obedience to u act and orders in question. The con pany itself would also in case of di: obedience be liable to the immense fin' provided for in violating orders of Il commission The company, in order test the validity of the acts, must fn some agent or employe to disobey the al the risk stated. The necessary e feet and result of such legislation mu be 10 preclude a resort to the court either state or federaD for the purpo! of testing its validity. The officers ar employees could not be expected to di obey any of the provisions of the ac or orders at the risk of such fines ar penalties being imposed upon them rsse the court sbcild decide that Il law was valid. 1efe reslI. wo--f be denial Of any hearing to the contrary