Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-03-24
IMPORTANT DECISION IN RATE CASE
Highest Court in the Land DEGREES
That State Legislatures Have no
Rights to Make Railroad Rates
Which Are condscatory and State
Courts Cannot Enforce Such Laws.
nv Associated prcssl


WASHINGTON. d. c.. March e3.-
Iii refusing 10 grant TO Aitornrv Cen
eral Young. Of Minnesota. "A writ of
hahcas corpus releasing him from The
penalty imposed hy the United Slntrs
Circuit Cour; for the District of Min.
ncSota on the charge of contcmnt or
court III instiiuting proceeding in n
stnic conr; for the enforcement OF the
railroad rate law after the Fedora,
court had prohibited such course
and III affirming Tho decision of JUDGE
Prltchad. of the United States Cir
cut Court for the Western Distric;
.ol North Carolina. discharring iron,
Imprisonment, .Ian,s II. Wood Il,
ticket agent of the Southern Railway
at Ashvillc. after he had been srn-
lcnccd by the h5hvllc puicc cnur'
to serve term on the rock pile ON
the charge Of collecting for a tickle,
on that road a greater price than VA,
permitted by Tho state railroad law.
the Supreme Court of tho United
States today 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 trTlnspnrta.
ton was the issue. and both involved
conflicts between The Federal AMI
state courts. The decision i'm coch
case was opposed both to tho stnta
and TO their courts. Tho opinion oc
the court In both cases. was announc-
cd by Justice peckham and with the
exception Of Justice Harlan all the
other msmhcrs of tho court stood no
hind him in the announcement OF the
courts finding.
.Jus,icc Harlan ron, , d;ssor,i, an
inion in tho Youn,, cosn In ,yh;,, ho
took the Wow that tho snit was Gin
plv , nrocccdinr against ia s.,ato nn
therefore NOT nermissiblc undor ,hn
eleventh amendment to fro constitu.
ticn. He therefore said IT had tho effect
OF closing tic courts of n state against
the state Itself ana predicted that tho
result would be disastrous. Tho two
cases were so similar that both IRA.
clically were decided in one opinion.
The principal pronounccmcnt was
made in the Minnesota case. Justice
Pcckham's opinion as outlined is in
part as follows:
,"Tho court h,s. dccidcd lint Ia. roo-
son Of ihp enormous noualtips nrO-
vidcd in Tho state laws by wor NJ
fnas against INC comnanic.. AMI i'm.
prisonmcnt Of iheir agents and en-
ploves. tho companics we're in effec,
prevented from eyer questioning tho
validity Of those laws. as the risl,
Of confiscotion of pronerty ana i'm.
prisonment of agents in case The com
panic. failed in their defense was tor
inrv trial OF tho question of validltr
much IN undertake in order 10 Obtain
Such Laws are therefore are held in
valid MS thcv prcvcnt The comnanici
from rcsortine 10 the courts and there
fore deprived them OF the equal pro.
lection Of. tho laws.
Aqainst the Constitution.
"rbo oucs,iou NJ IN, sumcicrcy os
tbc rotcs to onobIo tho communities !,
obrain some rotnrn 10 their Stock.
hol,lcrs for thoir investment has fc:.
many wear. becn held TO br one for
courts to decide. as IT would be =
vi i'm or tl,n constitution Tho