Morris tribune., 1908-03-28
DENIES HIS PETITION
Supreme Court Rules Against
Minnesota Official.
HOLDS RATE LAWS ILLEGAL

| HOLDS RATE LAWS ILLEGAL
Federal Tribunal of Last Resort De-
cides That State Statutes Are
titutlenal-Attorney General
Young Guilty Of Contempt.
Washington, March 24.-In refusing
| to grant to Attorney General Young
Of Minnesota a writ Of habeas corpus
| releasing him from the penalty i'm
posed by the United States circuit
court for the district of Minnesota on
i the charge of contempt Of court in in
stituting a proceeding In state
court for the enforcement of
the railroad rate law after
the federal court had prohibited
suoh a course and In affirming the de
cisiou Of Judge Pritchard of the Unit
ed States circuit court for the West
ern district Of North Carolina dis
charging from imprisonment James Fl.
Wood, a ticket agent of the Southern
railway at Ashsville. after he bad been
sentenced by the Asheville police
court to serve term on the rock pile
On the charge of collecting for ticket
on that road a greater price than was
permitted by the state railroad law,
the supreme court of the United
States added another to the series of
decisions which have rendered notable
the pressn 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
ficts between the federal and the
state courts. The decision in each
case was opposed both to the states
and their courts. The opinion of the
court in both cases was announced by
Justice Peckham and with the excep-
tion of Justice Harlan 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 took the view that
the suit was practically a proceeding
against the state and therefore not
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 it.
self and predicted that the result
would be disastrous
The two cases were so similar that
both practically were decided In one
opinion. The Particular pronounce
meat was made in the Minnesota
case. N" .>f @ @m
Law Declared to Be Invalid
The court pronounced invalid the
Minnesota law regulating both freight
and passenger rates. The opinion
held the Minnesota law to be uncon.
gtitutfonal ON its face because of the
enormous penalties imposed for dis.
obedience to it. e
The proceedings in Youngss case
grew out of an effort by the Mime
sofa federal court on May 81, last.
to restrain Mr., Young and other state
on1cials from executing or attempting
to execute the rate law Certain
stockholders of the Northern Pacific
Railway company filed suit at the
time asking for an Injunction to pro-
hibit the state otficials from carrying
the law into effect, on the ground that
the rate was so low as to make impos-
sible returns to the company ON its
The injunction was granted Sept
2S On the ground that the law was
confiseatory and its PRONUNCIATION was
followed by the COM
of an action by Attorney
General Young in the Ramsey county
state district court, in which that
court was asked to direct the issuance
OF writ of mandamus commanding |
the Northern Pacific company to com
ply with the rate law The state
court Immediately issued the writ in
with Mr.. Young's petition
and this proceeding precipitated a
euei COAuACt UcIWGcIl lQe ISHGfal and I
he state courts
Mr.. Young was summoned before +
he former to give an account of his !
defense of the courts injunction and /
aillng to make satisfactory eNplana-
ion. he was subjected to a fine of
100 for contempt of court, and at the
'ame time ordered to dismiss the case
n the state court
Refusing either to pay the fine or
0 dismiss the case, Mr. Young imme-
lately brought the case to the SUI
'reme court of the United States on a
etifion for writ of habeas corpus.
Ie based his petition upon the
rounds that the United States circuit !.
ourt was without Jurisdiction in the +
riginal proceeding because there was
% diverse citizenship and that the i
uit instituted against him as attorney
eneral was in effect suit against
ne state and not against him. 4