Los Angeles herald., 1908-03-24
DECISION
COVERS TWO
VIAL CASES
SOUTH CAROLINA AND MINNIE
sofa LOSE
HIGHEST TRIBUNAL FINDS FOR
CORPORATION
Penalties Are Declared to Be Excess
sive-Attorney General Must
Pay Fine-Ticket Seller
Released

BY Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, March 23.-In refus-
ing to grant to Attorney General Young
of Minnesota a writ of habeas corpus
releasing him from the penalty imposed
by the United States district court for
the district of Minnesota on the charge
of contempt of court in instituting pro-
ceedings in a state court for enforce
ment of the railroad rate law after the
federal court had prohibited such a
course, and in affirming the decision of
Judge Pritchard of the federal circuit
court for the western district of North
Carolina, discharging from imprison-
ment James Fl. Wood, a ticket agent of
the Southern railway at Asheville, after
he had been sentenced by the Asheville
police court to serve a term on the
rock pile on the charge of collecting for
a ticket on that road a greater price
than was permitted by the state rail-
road law, the supreme court of the
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 transportation
was the issue, and both involved con-
flicts between the federal and the state
courts. The decision in each case was
courts.
Harlan Dissents
The opinion of the court in both cases
was announced by Justice Peckham,
and with the exception of Justice Har-
Ian all the other members of the court
stood behind him in the announcement
of the courts finding.
Justice Harlan read dissenting
opinion in the Young case, in which he
L. tI1r xrsr tlaaf fIa "a -.
tically a proceeding against the state.
therefore permissible under the eleventh
amendment to the constitution. He
therefore characterized the opinion as
era making in the history OF the court,
said it had the effect of closing the
courts of a state against the state 1t
self and predicted that the result would
| be disastrous:
The two cases were so similar thai
both practically were decided in one
opinion. The pronouncement was made
in the Minnesota case.
Justice Peckhams opinion was
authoritatively outlined as follows;
The court has decided that by rea-
son of the enormous penalties provided
in the rate law by way of fines against
the companies and Imprisonment of
their agents and employees the COM
panies are in effect prevented from
ever questioning the validity OF those
laws as the risk of confiscation OF
property and Imprisonment of agents In
case the companies failed In their de-
fense was too much to undertake In
order to obtain a judicial decision OF
the question of such validity.
Held Unconstitutional
Such laws are therefore held uncon-
stitutional as they prevented the COM
panies from resorting to the courts, and
therefore oeprived them of equal pro-
lection of law.
The question of sufhcinecy 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 it would be d violation of the con-
stitution of the United States TO nix
rates of law as to be confisicatory II
enforced.
The Jaws providing rates for trans
portation of passengers and freight In
the two cases under consideration nave
been held by the courts below to be so
low as to be substantially confisicatory,
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 a suit is not one against the state
bringing suits for the enforcement OF
state enactment which fixed rates so
low as to be confiscatory and which
act was, therefore, violation OF the
constitution of the United States, ana
this principle is reiterated and again
decided in these cases.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts
in such cases is only exercised where
the state enactment is alleged TO De
Y iolation of the constitution or the
United States, and in such cases 1t is
PROPER for those courts to take Jurisolc-
tion equally with the state courts, as
the constitution of the United States Is
ty it's own provisions the supreme law
of the land, anything in state legisla-
tion or law to the contrary notwith-
standing, and there is no usurpation OF
jurisdiction in such event.
The same duties rest upon the state
courts and the party had his choice OF
forum without any invidious distlnc :
ton against the state courts, and IN
favor of the federal courts because or
his choice of the latter.
When a federal court has taken juris-
diction of cases before any proceeding
in state court has been commenced
the former court has authority TO de-
eide the case ard to enjoin any person
from proceeding in state court until
the federal cours has proceeded TO Judg- :
nlent. This is also well-estaohsne1
r,ght of a court of equity, and no new
sround is taken in this case.
Penalties Too Severe
The opinion turned almost entirely
rpon the penalty provision of the rate
laws and the courts views on that point
were stated in the following extract
from the opinion;
"For disobedience of the freight act
the OFFICERS. directors, agents and em-
Moves of the company are made guilty
and upon conviction each may be pun
ished by Imprisonment in the county
jail for a period not exceeding ninety
davs. Each violation would be sepa-
rate offense and therefore might result
CONTINUED ON Page Two)