The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-03-24

Washington, March 23.-In refusing
TO gram 10 Attorney General Young OF
Minnesota, a writ of habeas corpus re-
leasing 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
proceeding in a state court for ENFORCE
ment of the railroad rate law after The
federal court had prohibited such
course and in affirming the decision
of Judee Pritchard of the United States
circuit court for the western district or
North Carolina, diseharging from I'M
prisonment James II. Wood ticket
agent of the Southern Railway at
Asheville. after he had been sentenced
/, by the Asheville police court TO serve
a term or the rock pile on the charge
of collecting for a ticket on that road
a greater price than was permitted by
the state railroad law. the supreme
court of the United States today added
another TO the series of decisions which
have rendered notable the present term
of that court
Harlan Alone Dissented.
In both cases the right of the states
10 fix rates for railroad transporta-
ton was the issue. and both involved
COnfucIS between the leueEdl anu AAiN
states courts The decision in each case
was opposed both to the state and to
their courts The opinion of the court
in both cases was announced by JUS
tice Peckham, and with the exception
of Justice Harlan all the other mem
bers of the court stood behind him in
the announcement of the courts find
ing Justice Harlan read dissenting
opinion i'm the Young case. i'm which he
IL. errff arrl.a
tically a proceeding against the state,
therefore permissible under the
eleventh amendment 10 the constitu-
ton. He therefore characterized the
. opinion as era making in the history of
the court, said il had the effect OF clos
ing the courts of a state against the
state itself. and predicted that the re-
suit would be disastrous.
The two cases were so similar that
both practically were decided in one
opinion. The principal prOnOuncement
was made in the Minnesota case.
Opinion by Justice Peckham.
Justice Peckham's opinion was au-
thoritatively outlined as follows:
The court has decided: That by rea-
son Of the enormous penalties provided
in the rate laws by way of fines
against the companies and imprison-
iiEul VI tutIi dE--tlS anu FiilbAOyCSs SiiS
companies are i'm 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
defense was too much to undertake in
order to obtain judicial decision of
the question OF such validity.
such laws are therefore held uncon-
stitutional, as they prevented the COM
panies from resOrting to the courts.
and therefore deprived them Of equal
protection of laws.
The question of Suffieiency 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 violation of the
constitution of the United States TO
fix rates so low as TO be confiseatory
If enforced.
Jurisdiction of Lower Courts.
The laws providing rates for trans
Hertation of passengers and freight in
1fhe two cases under consideration have
$been held by the courts below TO be so
low as 10 be substantially confiscatory.
and should therefore not be enforced
until after further trials. The courts
4 ri 70, T.