The Washington herald., 1908-05-11
State RIGHTS No More.

Editor The Washington Herald:
The decision of the United States Su-
preme Court in Affirming the verdict of
the inferior Federal courts in Minnesota
and North Carolina is without question
the most severe blow that the question
Of State rights has yet received If
the lower Federal courts have Jurisdiction
70 suspend the laws Of the various States
before the State courts have had an op-
pOTtunity TO pass upon the constitutional
ity Of these laws, then the power Of the
Federal government becomes supreme and
the sovereignty Of the States is lost. We
are told that this decision renders prop
erty more secure, and that legitimate
Investments are no longer iInperiIed. But
in what way was property endangered
and legitimate interests imperiled before
this decision was rendered?
The laws of the States are sufficient
and can be depended upon To protect the
rights Of property and safeguard Iegiti-
mate investments. But it is not at ali
question Of protecting property rights
or vested interests. It is a question
whether a corporation, the creature Of the
State, shall be regarded as superior to
man, the creation Of God.
If citizen engages in business he
must rely upon the State for protection
It is the duty of the State to protect him
in his life, liberty. and possession Of his
property and it Is to the courts that he
must apply for the enforcement Of those
rights. Under the present construction Of
no fur
corporation A railroad corporation can
be chartered in one State. and bv vfrtue
OF its charter rights DO business il. anv
one or all OF the forty-six States of tbe
Union II may be empowered with the
right OF eminent domain and take pri-
Vate property TO serve its purpose. which
Is assumed to be a public one. If one of
the states in which this railroad cor
pOFau0n is doing business enacts laws
Tor the protection Of the people AGAINST
the extortions of this corporation the
railroad turns its back upon the State
and the State courts. and appeals to an
inferior Federal court to eniOin the on
fcrcement Of the law on the ground that
II is unconstitutional While the courts
are considering this question. the State
stands pOwerless. No tribunal except
the railroad has declared the law uncon-
stitutioDal, and yet the State is not al
lowed 10 enforce it. Furthermore. on its
face, law regulating railroad rates is
constitutional. There is no principle Of
law more firmly established than the
right of a State to control railroad rates.
and compel the railroad to treat all who
apply TO it on equal terms.
Charles F. Beach. jr.. in his able
treatise, Commentaries on the Law of
Private Corporations. says:
Whenever any person pursues a pubIfc
calling and sustains such relations to the
public that the people must of necessity
deal with him. and are under a moral
duress TO submit to his terms if he is
unrestfained by law, then in order to
prevent eXtortion and abuse of his posi-
ton the price he may charge for his
services may be regulated by law. When
private property is affected with a public !
interest, It ceases 10 be juris private
only.
Redfeld in his Law of Railways"
says concerning the necessity of ree1llat- |
ing railways:
Railways being a species Of highways. /
and IN practice monOpolizing the entire
traffic, both or travel and transportation /
in the country It is Just and necessary /
and indispensable to the public security 4
subject should be constantly exercised -
Gov. Larrabee, in his work on the rail |
read question. says:
1T is clearly not within the province
of the courts TO make rates or to Law
down rules to be followed by those 10 /
whom the law has delegated the power /
to make them, nor should the courts i
aid the railroads in any attempt to null
lily an official tariff that has been legally
A tarin prepared By sworn
and disinterested officials is more likely
to be Just than one prepared by inter- /
ested railroad men, and railroads should /
be compelled 10 adopt it and continue IL /
In use until it is amended or revoked by
legal authority
Is II reasonable or just to permit a rail-
road to nullify law OF a sovereign State
by invoking the aid Of Federal court
and asserting that the law is uncoBstitu-
tonal? II. after months or probably years
of waiting for the decision Of the Federal