The herald-advance. (Milbank, S.D.) 1890-1922, 1908-03-27
Declared Unconstitutional BY
Reason OF Heavy Penalties
1t imposes.
YOUNG FOUND IN CONTEMPT
Attorney General LOses-On All Points
Decision Opposes Both State and
Its Courts.

Washington, March 25.-In refusing
10 grant to Attorney General Young
Of Minnesota a writ of habeas corpus
releasing him from the penalty inn
posed by the United States circuit
court for the district of Minnesota on
the charge of contempt of court in in
stitutine a proceeding in d state court
for the enforcement of the railroad
rate law after the federal court had
prohibited such a course and in affirm
ing the decision of Judge Pritcnard
OF The United States circuit court for
The Western district of North Carroll
Ma dischargins from Imprisonment
James II. Wood. a ticket agent of the
Southern Railway at Asheville, after
he had been sentenced by the Ashe-
vile police court to serve a term on
the rockpile on the charge of collect
ing for a ticket on that road a greater
price than was permitted by the state
railroad law. the supreme court of the
United States yesterday added an
other to the series of decisions which
ihN tlNiNi'iN "a PlN'Ni
term Of that court.
Opposes State m Its Courts.
In both cases the right of the
Sla,es to fix rates for railroads trans
pOrtaIiOn was the issue and both in
volved conflicts between the federal
and the state colrts. The decision in
each case was opposed both to the
states and the courts. The opinion
of the court in both cases was an
nounced by Justice Peckham, and
with the exception of Justice Harlan
all the other members of the court
stood behind him in the announce
ment of the courts finding. Justice
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
therefore not permissible under the
eleventh amendment to the constitu-
ton. He therefore characterized the
opinion as era making in the history
Of the court. said 1t had the effect of
closing the courts of a state against
the state iself and predicted that the
result would be disastrous.
Young Loses on All Points.
The two cases were SO similar that
both practically were decided in one
or inion. The particular pronounce
ment vas made in the Minnesota case
The decision was against Attorney
General Young on all points. Sub
stantiallv. the court decided:
That the circuit court of the United
States had jurisdiction.
That the proceedings against the at
torney general We're against him as
an individual, because he vas at
tempting to enforce a law that was
clearly unconstitutional by reason Of
the heavy fines imposed; and
That the state law was unconstitu-
tional in that it denied to all person
the equal protection of the law.
History Of the Case.
The Minnesota rate law was pass
ed at the last session of the legisla-
ture. Certain stockholders of the
Northern Pacific railway ompany Sc
cured an injunction in the federal
court for the district of Minnesota re-
straining the state officials from en-
forcing the law. This injunction was
violated by Attorney General Young,
who secured a writ of mandamus in
the Ramsey county district court
commanding the Northern Pacific
company to comply with the rate law.
This proceeding precipitated a sharp
conflict between the federal and state
courts. Mr.. Young was summoned
before the federal court and fined 800
fer contempt. He appealed to the
United States supreme court, which
yesterday decided the case against