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

eIty or any Otner citzenf Tor all are efn- braced in the same constitutional guar
 antee of protection against acts of that 1 character.
 No Attack on States Rights. 1t has been said in the press and by authorized spokesmen of the administra- | ton that the action of the supreme court | of the United States was utterly destruc- 1 tive of states rights. There was never 1 more fallacious statement made in this 1 country. To undertake, by the final | action of a legislature, lrrevisable in the l courts except upon ruinous conditions, to determine what compensation one man, or one corporation. shall charge for serv- ices rendered to another Is not a states right, but it's a states wrong, for it is
 in the very teeth of .he constitution,
 which is the supreme law of the land.
 The ancient doctrine of states rights proclaimed by Jefferson, defended by Cal houn and advocated by Yancey was rest ed upon the supremacy of the constitu- tion.
 The modern interpretation of certain authorities is that the legislature and the executive are infallible that they are the final authorities in this country that the judiciary have neither the right to interpret laws nor to protect rights or property and of it's citizens when they are assailed by legislative or executive acts, and that it is treason to resist a legislative decree in the courts of the country.
 Such an interpretation would make the fathers of the doctrine of states rights turn over in their very graves.
 The supreme court of the United States has not failed to vindicate the rights or
 the states when they were assailed. Act after act of Congress has been declared unconstitutional whenever they entrench- ed upon the reserved rights of the states fnG of n be cited, among the most recent being those decisions which upheld the rights
 of the state to regulate the suffrage snd thereby enabled the people of the south
 to get rid of the danger of the negro vote.
 Governor Conner Quoted. In a statement attributed to Governor Conner recently, it is said that the Ala bama law differs from that in Minnesota and North Carolina, in that their right to a judicial determination of the req condolences of the statutory rates is pre- served by the acts of the legislature of this state and that pending the contro- verSy the courts of the state had power to suspend the rates
 Governor Conner was either misquoted in this statement, or has been sadly mis- informed as to the effect of the statutes adopted at the extra session of the legiS- lature. There is a right, under certain circumstances, which is so difficult as to make it almost impossible of exercise, to suspend rates made by the. railroad commission, but there is no power so far as the statutes of Alabama are concerned in any court to suspend any rate pend ing a hearing made by the legislature. It is absolutely necessary to put the rates in force at once unless relief could be had outside of the acts of the legls- lature of this state. The only relief which the roads could get and the only | forum to- which they could appeal for | the suspension of these rates, pending the | judicial ascertainment of their reason | ableness was through a court of equity, | and the right asserted being one Which | arose under the federal constitution. and the supreme court of the United States
 being the final arbiter of all questions arising under the federal constitution, It was the most natural and proper thing tEat the railroads should go in the first instance into a federal court
 It is not possible for the legislature of Alabama to take away from citizen residing outside of the state, or from
 citizen residing within the state, ms option to go into a federal court to de- termine a question arising under the red eral constitution. And any attempt by the legislature of state to deny to one of it's own citizens or to a citizen of another state his right to go into fed eral court to settle a federal question IS contrary to the constitution of the uni- ed States, which is the supreme law of the land, and is, therefore, null ana vod Time and again this question mas been decided, as I have stated 1t, by the supreme court of the United States.
 It has been however, correctly stated that there are differences between the Alabama and the Minnesota and the North Carolina statutes. Among these differences may be stated two.
 Some Charge More Than Others.
 For the same service, under substantial- ly the same conditions, the legislature of Alabama has permitted some railroads to charge more than others If they could have compelled the Louisville and Nash vile Railroad company to bow it's knee to their statutes and to withdraw itself and it's property from the protection of the courts of the country they would now by legislative decree, be com polling citizens along the line of the Southern Railway to pay 1t 20 per cent more for the same service than the citl- zens along the line of the Louisville and Nashville railroad are compelled to ray for the same service There is not A solitary road left in the first class which bears the lowest rate of freight eX- cept those which are proceeding in an orderly way in a court of justice to as- certain and have determined their rights under the laws. Every road which has surrendered it's right to hearing and a determination of the facts in court ot justice, has been promoted to the sec ond or third class and allowed to charge 20 per cent or 25 per cent more than its competitors for the same service. The Alabama Great Southern rallroau
 having the largest business of any road in the state per mile. Is allowed to charge 20 per cent more than the Atlantic Coast Line. which does less than one-half the business per mile.
 The Southern Railway, which does 40 per cent larger business per mile than the Atlantic Coast Line, is allowed to charge 20 per cent more for the same service. c..
 In the case of Cotting vs Kansas City Stock yards, 1S3 U. S. 79, statute in all respects similar to this. except that the corporations in that case were en- gagged in the stock yards business instead of the railroad business, was declared unconstitutional.
 It is my opinion that if the penal pro vision of the Alabama statute had not been declared void In the Minnesota and North Carolina cases, they would have had. in defending their classification in Alabama, a still higher hill to climb.
 But the Alabama statutes differ from the others in still another respect. By the express language of section 90 of the constitution of Alabama it is declared; After a suit has been commenced on any cause of action the legislature shall have no power to take away such cause of action or destroy any existing de- fense to such suit" It was the aVowed