The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-24
Their Right to Regulate the
Business of Railroads
LIS Completely Wiped Out by the
U. s. Supreme Court.
TWO CASES DECIDED
History of Litigation in Minne-
sofa and North Carolina.
State Courts Declared SubOrdi.
nate to Federal Tribunals.

Washington, March 24-In refusing
to grant to 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 a
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
Judge Pritchard of the United States
circuit court for the Western district of
North Carolina, discharging from i'm
prisonment James H. Wood, ticket
agent of the Southern railway at Ashe-
vile, after he had been sentenced by
the Ashevflle 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 added an
other to the series of decisions which
have rendered 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-
fiictS between the federal and the state
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 Justice
Harlan, and with the exception of JUS
tice Harlan all the other members of
the court stood behind him in the an
nouncement of the courts finding. Jus
tice Harlan read a dissenting opinion
in the Young case, in which he took the
view that the suit was practically a
proceeding against the state. and not
permissible under the 18th amendment
of the constitution He therefore refer
red to the opinion as era-making in the
history of the court, said it had the
effect of closing the courts of state
against the state itself, and predicted
that the result would be disastrous.
The two cases were so similar that
both practically were decided In one
was made in the Minnesota case. JUS
tice Peckham's opinion was authorita
lively outlined as follows:
The Courts Opinion.
"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 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 confscation of property
and Imprisonment Of agents in case the
companies failed in their defense was
too much to undertake in order to OBJ
tain a 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 the
equal protection Of the laws
1.-The question of sufficiency of the
rates to enable the company to obtain
some return to it's stockholders for
their investments has for many years
eide, and it would be violation of the
constitution Of the United States to fix
rates SO low as to be confiscatory if
enforced.
1.-The laws providing rates for the
transportation of passengers and freight
in the two cases under consideration
have been held by the court below to
be so low as to be substantially con-
fiscatory, 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,
although it prevents a state officer
from bringing suits for the enforcement
of state enactment which fixes rates
so low as to be confiscatory. and which
act was therefore violation of the
OIL Lie CD1lSu OldtcS, dlio
this principle is reiterated and again
decided in these cases.
Jurisdiction of the Court.
.'The Jurisdiction of the federal
courts in such cases is only exercised d
where the state enactment is alleged
to be a violation of the constitution of
the United States, and in such cases it
is proper for those courts to take
Jurisdiction equally with the state
nf he
United States is by it's own province
the supreme law of the land, any
thing in state legislation or law to
the contrary notwithstanding, 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
distinction against the state courts
and in favor Of the federal courts be-
cause of his choice of the latter.
when the federal court has taken
ceeding in state court has been
commenced the former court has
authority to decide the case and to en-
join any person from proceeding in a
state court until the federal court has
proceeded to Judgment. This Is also
equity, and no new ground is taken
in this case"
The opinion turned almost entirely
upon the penalty provisions of the
rate law, and the courts views on
that point were stated in the follow
ing extract from the opinion:
For disobedience of the freight
act the officers, directors, agents and
employees of the company are made
guilty of misdemeanor, and upon con-
viction each may be punished by i'm
prisonment in the county jail for a
period not exceeding ninety DAYS
Each violation would be a separate
offense. and therefore might result
III imprisonment for various agents OF
the company who would dare dfsobey
Continued on Page six,