The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-09-13

| ed only by designating the officers by name. Instead of including them in the general class other persons entoined | in the first injunction. Yet the cry was sent up that the Sovereignty or the State was insulted. and outraged 3y dragging 1t before the bar of the court Nothing was left undone which could be done, to infuriate the people against the court and the carriers who remained within its protection. | Writes Attorney General so acute was the situation in the minds of many reffecting men. that on 1 the 18th of August, 1907, I addressed the following letter to the Attorney General of the State. enclosing 1t in note wherein stated. he could make 1t public or not as his Judgment dic- tated:
 Montgomery. Ala. Aug. IS. 1907 Hon. Alex M Garber,
 Attorney General,
 Montgomery. Ala.
 My Dear Mir. Attorney General, For reasons fully stated in our con versation this evening, when you kind- iy called at my instance. I being con fined to the house. I give you the fol- lowing extract from an ofhciai letter of the Attorney General of the United States to me under date of August 16. 1907: You are not only authorized to publish the statement that the de- pertinent will take all necessary l means to secure the enforcement of Federal process. but 1t would be a source of satisfaction to the depart ble could be given to this statement" "T prefer, however. not to give. publicity to this statement in advance of some overt resistance to the pro- cess of the court. So much has ap- neared in the public press as official tn tAA tA thA program of arrests for violating rate statutes. notwithstanding their en- | forcement has been enjoined, and they have also been suspended in pursuance of the power vested in the court by the statute itself.> that cannot fore tell what course will be decided upon | at the conference which has been call. ed for tomorrow-the reputed purpose of which is set forth in the latter part of the enclosed slip. cut from The Att lanta Constitution.
 Gives Courts Position. eff there be those who advocate | resistance to the orders of the court. on the idea which has been often ad- vanced since the trouble in North Carolina, that the court would not have the support of the Executive De- partment in enforcing its orders in this class of cases, the possession of this extract from the Attorney Gen.
 
 buse their minds.
 "T know full well that you and | not only as officials. but as citizens who love our State, are in earnest ac- cord in the hope that there will be no clash of authority here which will in- | evitably ensue if men who are under the protection of the courts orders are arrested for violation of statutes. which have not only been enjoined, but sus- pended. under the authority of the States own laws. and one of which has been declared unconstitutional I ven- ture to suggest that a far better rem edy. redounding more to the good name of our people at home and abroad, would be by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals from the orders complained of. That court will be in session In Montgomery in the next forty days
 "'Yours sincerely.
 "'Thos. c. Jones'
 Governor Yields.
 Finally the Governor yielded to what he termed Superior power,' and determined to call an extra session of the Legislature to legislate the case of the railroads out of the court. That it was his purpose at one time to use force Is shown in an interview which he had sometime afterwards with Pres ident Roosevelt, wherein the Governor stated in substance, If the President did not call down his judge here, he would have trouble in Alabama and received the emphatic answer from the President that if he made any trouble in Alabama, the President would see that 1t did not last long. The main work of the extra session consisted in repeating the laws which made 1t the duty of the Railroad Commission to see to the execution of the rate statutes, thinking in that way there would be iio one to enjoin in order to preserve the property rights of the complain ants, against the numberless arrests, which could be made on the affidavits of private citizens It was so arranged1 that shippers and passengers could use the name of the State, on the theory that such a suit would be @ suit of the State which could not be enjoined, and it was also provided, strange to say, as the Legislature cannot exercise judicial powers, that in such suit the court should not respect any prior order which had been made about the same matter in any court. The carriers were prevented from taking the ordi- nary precautions to protect life and limb of passengers at stations, if they did not conform to the rates. The old rates and classifications were repealed and new rates and classihcations, with a slight increase, were adopted in place of them. The carriers which remained in the courts immediately filed supple mental bills attacking these statutes. A restraining order was issued, and the hearing of the motion for a prelimi- nary injunction was finally set for the eth of January, 1908. ten days ar gument was had. in which some of the most eminent counsel in the United States took part, and the parties of- fered affidavits and counter -affldavits almost up to the time the case was de- cided by the lower court on the 21st day of March, 1908, granting a preIIm- mary injunction.
 Penalty Features Invalid.
 "The penalty features of the rate statute, as the Supreme Court had be- fore decided. were held invalid, and most of the other statutes named, ex. cept those changing the rates and classiflcations, were decided to be un- constitutional. and 1t was held upon the prima facie case made by the evil dence offered, the court ought to issue a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the rates. In April 1908, an appeal was taken, and finally argued before the Court of Appeals In the spring of 1909. The Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the main conten- tion of the defendants that the suits were suits against the State holding the court had jurisdiction of the suits and to enjoin the operation of the rates and to prevent Interference by any other court or officer by civil suit or prosecution and trial of railroad op- eratives by criminal proceedings, by whomsoever attempted. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States had already settled the whole question in