The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-07-08

entftle 1t to injun0tive relief against such Illegal acts. se
 There is no such difficulty on prin- cipie. aaL respondents suggest. to the 1 courts enforcing the authority of the constitution, and causing its com mands to he respected and obeyed by executive officers In q case like this. whether they be clerks of courta
 sheriffs or solicitors.
 Courts of equity, from time im-
 memorial have en5oined parties from prosecuting actions in the law courts, and such procedure, by its operation upon the parties, as effectually prevents the law courts from trying the cases as if the injunction had included the law court by name. There must neces- | sarily be an actor. res and 1udex be- fore a judgment can be rendered. If the actor is silent or prevented from presenting his case. there can be no trial or judgment. Nowadays. it. is settled, whatever may have been the contention in the earlier days. that | such orders of the court of equity do not imply any superiority over the law court. and are not. invasive of its jurisdiction. or in any wise improper. |. Even after solemn trial and. Judgment In the law court. the court of equity operating in personam upon the par ties. may arrest the execution of the
 Judgment. and decree that 1t be held
 for nousht. if the equity of the case
 May Control omciai.
 That a court of equity may thus control . ministerial off1cer either be- fore or after the illegal act. in order to prevent 1t or undo It's effects, Is not
 matter of dispute in this day. What difference Is there in principle between
 preventing mere ministerial ofhcer in advance. from doing the illegal act to bring before the law court matters which ought not to be brought there
 since the questions to be tried. have fallen within the exclusive jurisdiction of another court, and laying hands up- on the miniSteria1 officer after the law court has passed upon such matters and preventing the ministerial ofiicer from carrying the Judgment into effect. Interference in the first rather than in the last stage would seem to be the better course. The Fourteenth
 Amendment denies to any agency of the State the power to accomplish the
 result 1t forbids. All courts, State, as. well as Federal, in order to en- every agency sought to be illegally
 used. In the name of the State. to de- prfve any one of life, liberty or prop erty without due process of law, or in any other manner to evade the suprern-
 acy of the Constitution, or lawA | Where the end is required. the means | are given.'
 "ordinarily, it is not customary to
 make executive officers of a court par | ties to injunction suits. If the parties | before the court obey the injunction. | no order can result or process Issue which the oficer will be called upon
 to enforce. In that event there is no necessity to deal with the ministerial | officer at all. There are, however. num- berless cases where the relief sought involves the staying of the execution
 of alleged invalid statutes, under which officers. though not interested in the property right asserted and denied in the litigation. claim and insist that they have duties to perform in the exc
 cution of the statute called in question, and in consequence. take or
 threaten action which does or will in' | fifct frrepara.bie injury to the property
 rights of complainant, and interfere
 with the Jurisdiction of the court which
 has first undertaken to ad1udge ths
 matter in dispute. Whenever that ia | the case. ft Is proper to make such of-
 hcials parties, and to order their con- | duct just as the court would In the
 case of persons directly interested in the right asserted In the suit. This is
 no more 'en1oining the court itself
 than an injunction which forbids par. | ties to prosecute suits therein, or an |
 and judgment rendered. preventing ex.
 eeution. whichscan be ordered wherever l essential to the ends of justice.
 l Original Point.
 "The injunction originally issued on this point and which 1t may become | the duty of the court to refnstate on the final hearing. if the ultimate proof es-
 tablishes the right contended for, nei- | ther invades nor interferes with the jurisdiction of any other court. The acts which 1t is sought to prevent
 officials from performing are purely
 ministerial. and as regards matters as
 to which they have no discretion. l Tn the particular case. the penalty statute is void and the civil suits, the bringing of which Is sought to be en- | joined, are not proper to be brought in | State courts, regardless of the reason
 ahleness of the rates, since the bring
 ing of them there to enforce those rates. is an interference with the ex- 1 elusive Jurisdiction which the Circuit | Court has already acquired to adjudge | and settle those very matters. The in- | junction does not stay the judicial hand itself in any event. The grand jury Is l left free to find indictments. The law | court, If 1t so chooses. may try the in- dictments. The solicitor. however, who
 prosecutes, the sheriff who arrests, and
 the officer who issues the capias, each l uOcS SU aL HIS peru. 1noTcOyp tnoy l wrongfully put state power in motion
 to accomplish ends which the constitu- tion forbids the state and all its agen- cies combined from effecting. when | they will result In irreparable injury to rights given or secured by the consti- l tuition. and violate rightful orders of a | court which has obtained exclu sive ju- risdiction of the entire question. The | officials thus enjoined, were simply pre- vented from exercising ministerial pow CT as to matters with which they were no longer concerned, matters as to which they were not only under duty
 not to undertake. but under the high
 est duty to refrain from undertaking them.
 There is no sanctity about the office
 of clerk of a court which forbids that
 he be restrained from issuing process, which will result in a multiplicity of
 suits and irPeparable Injury, any more than in the case of any other ministe-
 rial officer whose acts may affect a
 like result. It is not to be presumed
 that any court will instruct its minis
 terial officer to meddle with matters
 which have already been drawn into
 the exclusive Jurisdiction of another
 court, thereby relieving the clerk of
 any possible duty or discretion as to
 them. The fact, therefore, that the
 clerk performs his duties under the di-
 rection of the court is not of the
 slightest importance in determining the
 proprlety of issuing an injunction
 against the clerk.
 "It Is common practice for courts Of ftV iSa nrA fA .l