Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1908-03-24
Court Holds That They in Effect Deny
Right of Appeal.
PNION BY JUSTICE PEcKHAM
1t Says Minnesota Case is Not Suit
Against State.
HARLAN DIssENTs
JUSTICE
He Holds That Minnesota suit is n
Proceeding Against the state
Not Permissible Under the
Constitution.


nesota writ OF habeas corpus releasing
him from the penalty imposed by the
United States district court for the dis
trict of Minnesota on the charge Of con-
tempt Of court in instltuting proceeding
in a state court for the enforcement OF
the railroad rate law after the federal
court had prohibited such a course. and
in affirming the decision Of Judge Pritch.
ard Of the United States circuit court for
the western district Of North Carolina
discharging from imprisonment James II.
Wood. ticket agent OF the Southern Rail-
way at Ashevllle, after he had been SEN
fenced 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 railroad law. the supreme court OF
the United States today added two others
to the series of decisions which have rem
dered notable the present term of that
court.
state Control the Iasue.
In both cases the right OF the state to
fix rates for railroad transportation was
the issue and both involved conflicts be-
tween the federal and the state courts
The decision in each case was opposed
both to the states and to their courts. The
opinion OF the court in both cases was
announced by Justice Peckharn, and with
the exception Of Justice Harlan all the
other members of the court stood behind
him IN the announcement OF the courts
finding. Justice Harlan read a dissenting
opinion in the Young case. in which he
took the view that the suit was prac-
tically a proceeding against the state. and
therefore not permissible under the elev-
enth amendment to the constitution. He
therefore characterized the opinion as era
making in the history of the court; said
1t had the effect of closing the courts of
state against the state itself and pre-
dicted the result would be disastrous.
The two cases were so similar that both
practically were decided in one opinion.
The principal pronouncement was made in
tho Minnesota case
Opinion by Justice PecI<ham,
Justice Peckham's opinion was authori-
tatively outlined as follows:
"The court has decided: That by reason
of the enormous penalties provided in the
rate laws by way of fines against the COM
panies and imprisonments OF their agents
and employees the companies are in effect
from ever questioning the valid.
ity OF those laws as the risk of confisca-
tion OF property and Imprisonment OF agents
in case the companies failed IN their de-
Tense was too much to undertake In a ju-
dicial decision of q question OF such val
idity.
Such laws are therefore held unconsti-
tutional, as they prevented the companies
from resorting to the courts and therefore
deprived them OF the equal protection of
the laws
''The question of the sufficiency of the
rates to enable the company to obtain some
return to its stockholders for their invest
ments has for many years held 10 be one
for the courts to decide, as II would be a
violation of the constitution Of the United
States TO fix rates so low as to be con-
rscatory If enforced.
THE laws providing rates for the trans
portation of passengers in the two cases
under consideration have been held by the
court below to be so low as to be sub
stantially confiscatory. and should there
fore not be enforced until after further
trials. The courts had jurisdiction to make
such an order.
1T has also been held for many years
that suit is not one against the state,
altough It prevents a state officer from
bringing suits for the enforcement of a
state enactment. which fixed rates so low
as to be confiscatory and which act was
a violation OF the constitution
of the United States and this principle Ia
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 be a violation
of the constitution OF the United States
and in such case It is proper for those
courts to take jurisdiction equally with the
state courts. as the constitution OF the
United States is by its own provisions the
supreme law OF the land. anything IN state
legislation or law 20 the contrary notwith-
standing, and there is no usurpation of
Jurisdiction in such case.
Penalties Too severe.
The opinion turned almost entirely upon
the penalty provisions Of the rate laws. and
the courts views on that point were stated
in the following extract from the opinion
For disobedience to the freight act the
officers. agents and employees OF the COM
pany are made guilty OF a mlsdeneanor
and upon conviction each may be punished
by Imprisonment In the county jail for a
period not exceeding ninety days. Each
violation would be a separate offense. and
therefore might result In Imprisonment OF
the various agents OF the company, who
would dare dlsobey, for term of ninety
days each for each offense. Disobedienee
to the passenger rate act renders the party
guilty OF felony and subject to a fine not
$500 or imprisonment in the state
prison for period not exceeding five years
or both fine and imprisonment. The sale
OF each ticket above the price permitted
by the act would be a violation thereof.
II would be difficult II not impossible. for
the company TO obtain officers. agents or
employees willing 20 carry on It's affairs ex-
eept In obedience to the act and orders IN
question. The company itself, would. in
case Of disobedience, be liable to the Inn
mense fines provided fer The company. IN
order 10 test the validity OF the acts. must
find some. agent or employe TO disobey
them at the risk stated. The necessary
effect and result OF such legislation must
be TO preclude a resort to the eourts-either
state or federal-for the Durposs Of tsstina