The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-30


 bend DOT with surety in an smeunt P. Q, which pers and passengers for any excess rate exaoted of them during the litigation if complalnts should fan to make good
 state Rishts Not Invorved.
 AA on principle. nothing seems piainer on ss. than iny that state rights are in in these cases. The principle here snl piled is not new, It is older than American institutions. Life would be ,,nsoieranie n s in any government. claim gen had no redress against the wrongs done by officials in the name of law. N9 A,.nelo-saxon people would ever com sSSs ns ra t9 3va, such condition of arairs. of the Mother Country. the peonis. whiLe ,ahIs they submitted. as was inevi- ment to hdss dss ,nw,G,.fS, tneiT fern of govern son Sf the monarch, and held him to pe apove the process of law. and de- c,aTea cmnha the, the King could do no wrong" iib1tSsized iibsrtv ,n the instinct of personal mln.sters should be responsible for the wrong done, though they acted on the 9l.eet a.st orders of the sovereign. The wrong, was offset by the fiction that ne nad been badly advised. anss there- tore' fore ms orders could give no protec- wbo Srbn ,U wara those who gave the bad advice. authors of the wrong. ana osPsonaliv accomntabie therefor. The flaw of inc @ strained 0ok Win fhs of pEaee pb. of the ynrs. Of Commons impeached the aavissr oS the kans, and the courts protected the subject from the arbitrary acts of issser is na, omeials ana In our country, there all of them combined. who emhcd,es tne sovereignty of the people or can say ssy rney constitute the State. These SSypen's; Sy arentn snd iike e. the King, must act agents is bound by the Consultation ana when they exceed the limits of rneit trust; the law imputes the wrong 'not 10 the State itself but to its agent who no longer represent inc stsfe put becomes trespas and wrong
 doer Tn the eye of the law. The nrin- t.pie th IS the same. whether applied to or the United States, and it's maInten. ance IS essential to liberty and free governments Can the principle be al- ayot avsed because one tribunal rather tn han ana snforces It? The Constitution of the United States towers above inc tbs HtboseTTlnmIent' TlnI.snat' both of the State and of been repeatedly declared by the Su- preme Court of the United States that .Notnlng can be interposed between one individual and the obligation he aL- Of tne United States, which car, shield or ueIend him from their just auth oritv. ana shtne the extent and limits of that aI states b1 51e nssgs eoysrnmsnt nf of the United ithnterprets and applies for itself If the thhereaore an individual. acting under ons one s assumed authority of State, as oL o its. laws. comes into conflict with me superior authority of a yaiid ia u, pt. pr tne United States, he is stripped of hsc iectaS arSepresentative character and sub 9uences of his individual conduct The any any Immunity from responsibiiity to Rs uHs1GFisy HSPesy 1ss Sf U the U1njsted
 The objection then comes to fhis. rt
 s not the principle itself whose rieht. iusreSs is wrensaS IS denied. but that the state lished ns by the fathers, in the sxsrciSe oL its unquestioned jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of dif. ninin states applies this great prin- S. to pTevent nitizen of Alabama From doing wrong. under color oS . r nnconstttutional act. to d citizen os = haster iast state; But how can 1t be vio- that tribunal to exercise sucb no,ysr n"r Mnen the Constitution of fine fJnitsd States gave the Jurisdiction in so many MordsT The argument in it's last arl- ciples of the Union, which crsatss ,ri- eunals te. m every State. to which in cer- tain cases citizen of the state mav ssssoas sssoas as as well as citizens of other That the Consultation gives such powa~ Is not matter of honest aisputes A reading of that immortal instrument snows si, that the jurisdiction is given in go many words. Certainly the States surrendered all tile powers which ihe Constitution confers upon the C1overn . ment of the United States. The lack or suen courts vas declared one of the tne confederation, whose fatal weak ness and discord, for a time. made I0v CTS Of liberty. despair of the expert % f1naIIv 9t forrepp republican .hi goyernment: and rom themselves in the Constitution. Wnereby governm ent supreme fin its Spnere was set up over State govern right of the citizen of one State. to sue a citizen of another State. and son1e- times of citizens of the same State 10 sue each other in a Federal Court, if of the Constitution. A@rhe reasons which made the right a valuable one were universally acknowledged at the time. and Few rehecting people will now tions which make 1t desirable for the citizen to have a constitutional right 10 choose the forum in which to test his rights. The right of a Federal
 Ty. In q pfopertcase. to strike down A void legislative act, whether of Congress or or the State Legislature, can in no way impugn the right of State to "con- trol It's own affairs" It Is vital to the protection of life. liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. that the Legislature, neither State nor Federal shall control local affairs" which in matters of the kind concern all the people, save by methods and means which the Constitution approves. The people have never committed to either government any power to control local or general affairs, outside the law, or in defiance of the safeguards prescribe ed by the fundamental law. No thought full man wishes any person, no matter officials. who have no valid authority for their exactions. Surely the State can have no interest in the execution of an unconstitution law. When one of States statutes Is refused operation by a court whether State or Federal, be- cause 1t transgresses the fundamental law. Its sovereignty has not beeE In- suited or It's authority defed. When the judgment of a court arrests affirm. ative. action on the part of the offlcer act to the injury of the citizen. 1t does not interfere with any property of the State. It does not utter any command O the State. It does not compel the State to pay any debt or perform any contract. It does not control the ex- the officer under valid law as to the policy of the State; for the State can have no policy contrary Go that of the law. and no citizen or offi- trample down any of its commands. How then, and wherever, is 1t possible for States rights to be involved. much less assailed?