New-York tribune., 1908-03-24
STATE RAILROAD
RATE LAWS INVALID.
FIR RE4CHING DECISION
BTU. S. SUPREME COURT!
Minnesota and North Carolina Stat
utes Unconstitutiona
crdl Courts Upheld.


70 Attorney General Young of Minnesota writ
Of habess corpus. releasing him from the pen
stv imposed by the United States Circuit Court
Cor the District of Minnesota on the charge of
contempt Of court in institutins proceeding in
state court for the enforcement of the rail
road rate law after the federal court had pro-
hihited such and in affirming the
ciejon Of Judge Pritchard. of the United States
Circuit Court for the Western District of North
Carolina discharging from imprisonment James
y Wood. = ticket agent of the Southern Rail-
Nav 81 Asheville after he had been sentenced
pr the Asheville police court to serve term on
the rock Pile on the charge of collecting for
ticket on that road a greater price than
-e-n,itfed by the railroad law. the Supreme
court Of the United States to-day added an
other 10 the series of decisions which have rem
6sred the present term of that court notable.
In both cases the right of the states to fix
-s,es for railroad transportation the issue.
snd both involved conflicts between federal and
state courts The decision in each case was
against the state and its courts, The opinion of
the court in both cases was announced by Jus
-ioe Peckhan1. and with the exception of Justice
Harlan all the other members of the court con-
Cured in the findings. Justice Harlan read a
dissenting opinion in the Young case, In which
re took the view that the suit was practically a
proceeding against the state. not permissible
under the Eleventh Amendment to the Consti-
tuition He therefore characterized the opinion
as epoch making IN the history of the court,
esid il had the effect of closing the courts Of
state against the state Itself and predicted that
the result would be disastrous.
JUSTICE PECKHAMs OPINION
The two cases were so similar that both prac-
.ioaIly were decided in one opinion. The princi-
PAL announcement in the Minnesota case.
.,,,s<D- -Facsa FIzfl as
follows:
The court has decided that by reason OF the
enormous penalties provided in the rate laws, ny
way Of fines against the companies and 1npris-
onrnent of their agents and employees, the COM
psnies were in effect prevented from ever ques-
riouing the validity OF those laws. as the risk OF
c1uiscation of property and imprisonment OF
agents In case the companies failed In 1heir oe-
fence was much 10 undertake in order TO
obtain judicial decision of the question OF such
validity.
as they prevented the companies from resortlng
10 the courts. and therefore deprived them OF the
equal protection of the laws
The question OF the sufficieDcy of the rates TO
enable the company obtain some return to its
stockholders for their investment has for many
years been held TO be one Tor the courts 10 ce-
eide as il would be violation of the <1onsti-
tuition OF the United States TO fix rates SO low
Is to be confscatory If enforced
The laws providing rates for transportation OF
Messengers and freight in the two cases under
consideration have been held by the courts be
low be so low Is 10 be SUBSTANTIALLY CollIisCd-
tory and should therefore not be enforced until
after further trials The courts had jurisdiction
make such an order
II has also for many years been held that a
suit is not one against the state, although 1t
prevents a state officer from bringing suits Tor
the enforcement of state enactment which
fEed rates 80 low as to be confscatory and
which act was therefore a violation of the Con-
rtitutior of the United States. and this princi-
pie is reiterated and again decided IN these
cases.
FEDERAL LAW SUPREME.
Il is No more suit against the state than is
, proceeding which compels an of1lcer or the
eafe 70 produce a person in his custody charged
with q crime against the state before q federaI
court or judge, who thereupon dlscnarees suen n
person on the ground that his imprisonment Is
in violation of the federal Constitution Such
proceeding has been held valid for many years
past.
The case of Fits VS. McGhee decided
upon its own facts, and has not been regarded
overruling the former cases upon the suh1ec1
of what constituted suit against the state
The Jurisdiction of the federal courts in such
cases Is only exercised where the state enact
-lent IS alleged 10 be violation Of the Constttu-
tion OF the United States, and in such case IL Is
proper for those courts TO take jurisdiction
equally with the state courts. as the Consutu-
ton Of the United States is by Its own lfoNis-
ions the supreme law Of the land, anything in
any state constitution or law 10 the coiilIal ~
notwithstanding, and there is no usurpdt'oh VI
Jurisdiction in such event
The same duties rest upon the state courts.
and The party had his choice OF forum "lthout
any invidous distinction against the state coul
and in favor of the federal courts because OF MS
choice CT the latter.
When federal court has taken Jurisdlctlon oI
case before any proceeding IN a state court
hss been commenced the former court has au-
thority to decide the case and 10 entoln any
person from proceeding in a state court uhtli
Tie federal court has proceedeo 10 Juusine .
This is also well established rigst OF a court
of equity and no new ground is taken IN TINS
case
PENALTIES TOO SEVERE.
The opinion turned almost entirely on the pen
city provisions of the rate laws ana the cour'
views on that point were stated as follows;
For 6isohedfence TO the freight act the officers.
directors agents and employees of the company
are made .,,il,v Of a rnisdemeanor and upon
CONVICTION each may be punished by 1ihprlsoi,-
fnent in the county jail for q perloo nov eAoeeo-
Ing ninety days. Each violation "ouo pe q 1ep
offence and therefore might result IN I'M
pisonrent of the various agents OF the COM
psny who would dare disobey 1or sao teiun VI
ninety days each for each offence; DisopeuieiItv
To the passenger rate act renders the parry
guilty OF a felony and subject 10 hne not eh-
oeeding 5000. Imprisonment In the s'aee
sf1son for a period not exceeding nHe year % VI
both fine and Imprisonment Inc sane " co..
ticket above the price permitted by the act
would be a violation thereof. 1t woulo De oiiti
eai II not impossible, for the company 10 op-
lsin officers agents employees Wiling 10 cafi
On its affairs except in obedience 10 the act aIa
oroers in question. The company ltseif "ouiu
also in case OF disohedience, be liable 10 tile I'M
.aense fines provided for in violating oroers VI
the Commission The company in order TO test
the validity OF the acts, must hnd some aeen'
~ enploye 70 dsobey them at the risk stated
me Necessary effect and result OF such iesisIa s
son must be 10 preclude resort 10 tne Coui %
'eitner or federaD for the purpose OF tes,,
ing Its validity. The officers and enpioyes couid
hot be expected te 6isobey any of the PROVISIONS
VI the acts or orders at the risk or such lines
sho penalties being imposed upon them in case
~ ne court should decide that the law was Vailu,