The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-14
TATE FORCES WIN
 INJUNCTION SUIT
1. scsssa..<1 F. r.s. o-..,

; uyjuNI1IUN oUEt .ss scs.s,--.sE ss.- r.s. o..,, 01ssti6n never, had the force, of law ubs light and power. of. .sthe State te pSss such a law. the eonstitution, be
 n< conforuied to in Its enactment. ii not and cannot be denied. <Rexo ondents -strenuously insist thai fka act, is constitutional. concedfns Cor the sake of argument that the en' oc<mentsis invahd they Insist that ths complsfnant- fs In no position to chai' tenxs It's constitutionaiity. since thers sts other lays and certain sections o' N5e constftution which require the com pfainant to perform certain conditions precedent before 1t is entitled to pro faction as to any business in, this state ctntrs than interstate commerce trans actions, and that the bill does not show ltfhAd complied with those laws.
 .They also insist that this court can not entsrtafn this bill, because ft showt no Invasion of any rights secured un. ders the sconstitution or laws of the united States, and hinges Its sole title t6tretfef upon the Allegations that the 7FSAA sissssioz ssstrte--which, If valid put: n end to compiainan 6 scase--was not passsd In conformity to the constitu- ticn Sof. the state Of Alabams. swhich pFeseRts ss. question the decision of which lies 30 peculiarly within the Drovfnce of the State court. that the Fe1eral1 court. ought not to retain the case. but should remit the complainant eo the State forum where alone the nsiestion can be fnaiiy determined. F
 They further insist that the court has discretlon. in view of the nature oS the property right asserted and the public concern in its exercise, to con sider the harm. which may result to the public from granting the preiim mary injunction as we'll as that which ss s=s sss.is to complainant from refus- inR it, and, on high grounds of public policy, should withhold preliminary Injunction until the question &of com p1aInant's rights to do other than in- fefat&te commerce in this State is test a hys mandamus in the state courts 10 compel the issue to 1t, or to the whole s&lers and retailers, of 8. license, which fespondents insist under the circum- stances of this ease. Is an adeouate
 Gist. ef .Csmplaans. s,s4 <
 s'Compisinant, on the other hand. as strenuousiy insists. for reasons ably &sfsiied, that the prohibition statuteis invaiid and the complainant having bui1t up a reputation and good will for its business and products, { In, which 1t has expended one hundred thousand dollars, and being prepared to make large sales to wholesalers and retail ers, who but for the thFestito prose cute them under @&iie invalid enactment would buy, largely of complainant's product as they did in the past, the goodwill of sttIefr business is being de- skr0yed. and they are prevented from making large profits which they other w1ss would make, and that defendants are unable personally. to respond flor the amount of damages Inflicted; whereby complainant is datiy cofnpeli- ed to suffer irfebarable injury, for the fedress 'of which, 1t has no adequate remedy at law. n t -fts #
 s.s;They. inslst that the court not only has 1urfsdiction, but is under duty to detetinine the questions raised, and that the sprohibitlons law being unc0n- stifationai. there Is no public policy which forbids wholesalers and retaiiers tosbuytandf sell eonnpiainant's beer. and the court cannot consider that ques- ton in determining compialnant's rights in the premises.
 Tt Is also insisted, since nothing But q ptise question of law Is Involved
 which cannot be varied on the final hearing. that this, court is now bound fo act on its own judgment as to the constitutlonatify of the prohibition lmw, and if sitf be of4 opinion that It Eis invalid, must ex deblto jnsticiae, grant the relief here prayed, upon the same principles which goyerned the courts action in the railroad. rate cases here ana the action of the SupSSme Court Of the, United Stat6s In the similar easel from azinnesota.- > ---,@-- .' .v
 Under the Constftution and laws of the United States, the ciRcuit courts of the United States have originalcog- nizances concurrent with the courts of the several States. of all suits, of . civil nature at common law and in equity, where the matter in dispute extends. exclusive of interests and costs the sum sor, value of 22,0OO. In which there Is a. controversy between citizens of diRerents States. A citizen of Indiana may. therefore. other con- ditions permitting. litigate with citi- zens of Alabama in Federal Court here any question which he might litigate if he were the plaintiff In q State court. The Constitution and laws. giving the citizen of another State the right to resort to the Federal Court here to settle c dispute with a citizen of this State. the court has no power to cast such a yuitor out of it's portals. because he seeks to litigate in the Federal court a right dependent solely upon the construction or validity of the statutes of this State.
 .1t must not be forgotten that the circuit courts of the United States in
 the exercise of such concurrent juris- diction are. for all practical purposes, courts of the States in which they sit, and their functions under. such cir cumstances are to enforce the rights of the party according to the laws of the State. just as the courts of the State in exercising Jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit courts of the United States, in certain cases under the Con- stitption, laws and treaties, of the United States. must enforce the laws of the United States. In this way the State and Federal courts reciprocally support the authority of the State and Federal governments and for these purposes these courts constitute one Judicial system. Cohens V. Virrinia, 6 Wheaton. 2e4.
 Matter of JurIsdtetion. ..-4--
 The exercise of Jurisdiction by the