The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1908-03-27
States lose IN
SUPREME court
DECISION IN CONFLICT WITH
FEDERAL TRIBUNALS ARE
HANDED DOWN.
Opinion 10 by Observation-Disclosures
and North Carolina Both Defeated
In Litigation That Concerned Rail-
road Rates.

| Washington Mar. 24-In refusing 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 instituting a
proceeding in state court for the en-
forcement of the railroad rate law
after the federal court had prohibited
such course, and in Affirming the de-
cision of Judge Pritchard Of the Uni
ted States circuit court for the west
ern district of North Carolina, dis
charging from imprisonment James
H. Wood, ticket agent of the South
ern railway at Asheville, after he had
been sentenced by the Asheville po-
lice court to serve term on the rock
| pile on the charge of collecting for
ticket on the road greater price than
was permitted by the state railroad
law, the supreme court Of the United
| States Monday added another to the
series of decisions which have rem
dered notable the present term of that
| court.
In both cases the right of the states
| to fix rates for railroad transporta-
| ton was the issue and both involved
| conflicts between the federal and the
state courts.
Justice Harlan Dissents.
The decision in each case was OPP
posed both to the states and to their
courts. The opinion of the court in
both cases was announced by Justice
Peckham and with the exception OF
| Justice Harlan all the other members
| of the court stood behind him in the
| announcement of the courts finding.
Justice Harlan read a dissenting opin-
ion in the Young case in which he
took the view that the suit was prac-
tically proceeding against the state
and therefore not permissible under
| the eleventh amendment to the consti-
tuition. ...s.
The two cases were so similar that
both practically were decided in one
opinion. The principal pronounce
ment was made in the Minnesota case.
.. Outline Of the Opinion.
Justice Peckham's opinion was au-
thoritativeiy outlined as follows:
"The court has decided: That by
reason of the enormous penalties pro-
vided in the rate laws, by way of
fines against the companies and i'm
prisonments of their agents and en-
ployes, the companies are in effect pre-
vented from ever questioning the
validity of those laws, as the risk of
confiscation of property and imprison-
ment of agents in case the companies
failed in their defense was too much
to undertake in order to obtain
judicial decision of the question of
such validity.
Such laws are therefore held I'M
constitutional as they prevented the
companies from resorting to the
courts, and therefore deprived them of
the equal protection of the laws.
''The question of the suficiency of
the rates to enable the company to
obtain some return to it's stockholders
for their investments has for many
years been held to be one for the
courts to decide as 1t would be vio-
lation of the constitution of the United
States to fix rates so low as to be
conflscatory If enforced.
Must Not Be Confiscatory.
"The laws providing rates for trans
portation Of passengers and freight in
the two cases under consideration
no hn1 hx ha 70
be so low as to be substantially con-
| 1scatory, and should therefore not be
| enforced until after further trials. The
| courts had jurisdiction to make such
an order.
1T has also for many years been
held that suit is not one against the
state, although it prevents state Of
ficer from bringing suits for the en-.
forcement of state enactment which
fixed rates so low as to be confiscatory
and which was therefore violation of
the constitution of the United States
and this principle is reiterated and
again decided in these cases.
1T is no more a suit against the
state than is proceeding which COM
| pels an officer of the state to produce
a person in his custody charged with
q crime against the state before fed
eral court or Judge who thereupon
discharges such a person on the
ground that his Imprisonment is in
violation of the federal constitution
Such proceeding has been held valid
for many years past"
Frank n. Hosford a Suicide.