The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-04-01
ERl-mlkINe DECISION.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
DECIDES AGAINST STATES.

DASsSSh-S AuSkNSI
FEDERAL Circuit judges Sustained In
the Railroad Rates Cases From
Minnesota and North Carolina
Justice Marian FYies Dissenting
Opiaion-Hc Says Results VIII be
Washington. March 23-In refus-
Ing to grnrt to Attorney Genera,
Young Of Minnesota writ If habeas
corpus releasing MIN rom the PEN
atty imposed by the United States cir
cult court for tn, district OF Mime
sofa nm the charge Of contempt of
court In institutins a proceeding In
Stste court for the enforcement Of the
railroad rate law aftsr the Il deral
sou:t hai L.ohih:tej sucn 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. a ticket
agent OF the Southern railway at
Ashsvills after he had been sentenced
by the Ashevilla police court to serve
a term on the rock pile on the charge
Of collecting Cor q ticket on that road
q greater price than was permitted
by the State railre I'D commission, the
supreme court Of the United States
adied another to a series Of decisions
which have rendered notable the pres
en- tero. OF that court.
In b.,th cases the right Of tHe States
tn ~ rates for railroad transportation
was .the issus. and both iivviv,d con.
hicts b<tween federal ai,d state
courts The decision In each case was
cpposed both to the States and to
their courts. The opinion OF the court
IA hoth cae~s was announced by JUS
tice Psskham. ana with the exception
OF Justice Harlan all the other men,
berI Of the court stood behind him
In the announcement of the courts
nnt ing. Justice Harlan road a dis
sacting opinion In the Young case in
which he trok the view that .:.e suit
was practically q proceeding against
the State and therefor, not pcrn,issl>
BILE under the eleventh amendment {,
the constitution. He therefore char
acterised the opinion a. era-making
In the history Of the court. and said
II had the effect OF closing the courts
of state against the state itself and
prsdictsd that the result would be
disastrous.
The two cases were 20 sin,ilar that
both practically were decided in ono
opinion. The principal pronouncement
was made in the Minnesota case. q
Justice Peckham's opinion as QUE
lined II in part a. follows
Tho court heas decided: That By
reason Of the enorthous penalties pro-
vided In the rate laws. by way Of
fnts against the companies and inn
pris9nment Of their agents End en-
ployeB. the company were In effect
prevented from ever questioning the.
ef those laws. end the risk Of
corhscat:on Of property and imprison-
ment Of agents In casa vhe companies
failed ip their defense was too much
to undertake In oader to obtain a de.
cis,on on the question Of such Va.
lidity.
such laws are thsr sfore held un-
a. they prevented thu
frs m resortinK to the
courts. snd therefore deprived them
Of the equal protection Of tho laws.
The auestie n of tn. sufYiciency Of
the rat.s to enable the company t,
obtain somc retnrn to 'ts stock holders
for their investment. hiss f,r many
years osen held to be une for the
courts TO decide a. IL wouil b. a vio.
'ation OF the. constitution .f .he Uni.
ted States to fx rates 90 low as to be
conhscatcry II enforced.
"rhe laws providing rates, for trans
portatlon Of pasengors and freight in
ths two cases under consideration
hare herr held by the courts below to
D.. % low o. to. b. Substantially .onfs-
catry and should therefore not be
enforced un'ii after further trial rhe
courts had jurisdiction to make such
an order"
'ThI proceeding ir Younx's case
grew out OF an effort by the Mime.
sots federal court on May 81 last {,
RESTRAIN Mr.. Young and other stat,
r:cials from executing or attempting
to execute the rate law. Certain stock
holders Of the Northern Pacific Rai'-
way company fled Ia suit at that
line. asking for an Injunction to pro.
A.