The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-04-07
DECIDES
tcs.ssssea eresa r.se o.e.l

warded as drastic legislation affecting {he conduct of their business within lie State. and applied to Judge Thomas k<R Jones, of the United States Circuit {Court at Montgomery. for . temporary Restraining order and. later, preiim- Anary injunction restainins the enforce |mnet or attempted enforcement of the lGtate laws by the Railroad Commis- kuion or other officers of the State !charged with that duty. These in !5unctions were granted during the sopring and summer of last year, and AGovernor Conner called the special ses- nfon which convened in November. l1907. This session did not alter or ianend the passenger rate of 2 l-2 icents per mile prescribed by the resu- liar session, but repealed the "110 Com tmedity Act" and enacted in its place what are known as the Flight Group Acts." being eight separate statutes which classified the railroads and grouped the commodities. Several ;prominents railroads In the State conn lpromised rather than 5oin in the fight to nullify the laws governing them. 'Whide the compliments in these cases maintained that the rates were con dscatory and violated the due process clause of the Federal Constitution as well as like provisions of the State Constitution They also asserted that ithe statutes unlawfully delegated leg ,1slatfve power to the Railroad Com mission. The records contain about i4.000 pages. large part of which is taken up by affidavits of officials of eahe railroads and other witnesses re- lspecting past earnings, value of rail- road properties, cost of operation, and other expert opinion. testimony and statistics. The record was silent as Ito the effect of the practical test of fthese rates by the non-contesting rail- iroads which have tried them in actual soperation for about two years. No ap- peals were taken by the State from lthe decrees enjoining the laws enacted lat the regular sessions. but the special 'session repealed the most important of those laws. .s < The Railroad Commission and the .other defendantsfassigned that the Cir 'cuit Court erred in. granting the in- .5anctions and appealed to this court. The cases were argued elaborately about twenty days ago by a distin- fguisheG array of counsel before Judges Pardee. Mccormick and Shelby.
 It seems that the opinion rendered will serve to settle in the minds of the people the fact of the Jurisdiction and authority of the Federal Courts in such matters, and at the same time to check the improvident issuance of pre- 1irninary inJupctfons. especially in eases where great public interests are Involved.
 The Opinion.
 Shelby, Circuit Judge delivered the opinion of the court:
 We assume as true and indisputable chat the Federal courts have jurisdic- tion and auth ority to annual and en- join acts of a State Legislature that are confiscatory or otherwise in con- 1lict with the Constitutions that they have no right to decline to exercise voked; that every citizen, when the is either diverse citizenship or a federal question involved. has the fright to Invoke such jurisdiction; that when such Jurisdiction has attached. it Is exclusive, in the sense that State courts or State authority cannot in-- Injunction may be. lawfully issued to lpreserye Nsuch jurisdiction from i'm lTasion by either civil or criminal sproceedfngs; and that ah injunctive 1uit to stay action by State officers under an unconstitutfonai State law 1s not necessarily a suit against the State. There is in our minds no doubt innumerable difficulties and d1sputa- tations arise in their practical appli- Many questions are raised in these cases as to the breadth and scope of the injunctions;. whether future &C., be legally enjoined; whether injunc- lions against clerks and sheriffs are not. In effect. inJunctions against State courts; whether the effect of these injunctions Is illegally to re- sstrain action by the State grand ju-