The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-09-03
Letters to The Editor
JUD5E JONES POINTS OUT
 ERROR IN RESOLUTIONS

Editor The Advertiser:
 You publish this morning some reso. seSers setGai of of the ne sates our them, in which they say, We believe that the constitut ona ity of State laws should be first determined by tho State Supreme Court, as suggested by tAo Supreme Court of the United States"
 Wherein can be found any such sug' gestion by the Supre ne Court of the United States? One may search It's re- ports for the past hundred years with out finding even the remotest trace of any such an idea; Its teachings have History Htas teiis us that one Of the x tutlon of the United States was formed was to create courts ,f its own. own. 9 t9 for that matter cit.aens of the same State where a Federal question Is ir volved. might resort as matter of ab, solute right. al their own uncontrolle pleasure. whenever any of tneir rights were involved. The wisdom of the fathers. taught that great wrongs and could be tested no W ere e.se than in the State courts as was the case in tn 6 days of the Confederation. They put in the Consultation n emphatic con hemnation of that system by providing for the creation of tribunals of it's own. inferior to the Supreme Court where all these questions could be set lessness and chaos, un Ter the old arti- cles of confederation. which led to the formation of the Uni Jn. will recall that the absence of such courts, was de- clared to be the 'trowning defect" ol the Articles of Confe. .leration, and one among the weighty reasons which in. duced "the people of the United States tablish justice" etc, for themselves and their posterity.
 The Supreme Court If the United States has spoken so frequently of late that it is astoundiIg tnat gentlemen learned in the la". should have fallen into such a grave historical error. Court reports-Wilcox vs. Conso dated Gas Co.. I12 U. s. sS-the Supreme Court said:
 ton of the court below, which have been stated by counsel for the appel lants, the Publie Ser 'ice Commiss. or icise that court for taking Jurisdiction of the case as precipitate. as if it were a question of discretion or am4tv the case. On the contrary there wa. no discretion or comlty about 1t. Wher a Federal Court is properly appealed tC i in a case over which 1t has Jurisdlc' ton, it is it's duty to take Jurisdiction | (Cohens vs. Virginia. { Wheaton. 26+J i and in taking it that court can not DC | truthfully spoken or as 'preeipitate 1T ! of local interest is imlhaterial, so long as the parties are citizens of differen l States, or a question Is involved .whic. 1 by law brings the case within the jul
 rfsdiction of a Federal Court. Int right of a party plaintiff to choose { i Federal Court when there is a choi"e | can not be propery de.hed."
 Court had decided the case of ex partt
 Young (209 U. s. 167) which attracted national attention. Tnere the Attor
 was enjOined from suing In it's oWI
 courts to enforce laws which collide,
 with the supreme authority of th'
 Union The right and duty of the To " | CT Federal Court to enforce the Con 1 stitution was again enphatically up | held, The court said. Jurisdiction o | this general character nas been exer | cised by the Federal Courts from tn,
 ime of Osborn vs. Bank up to the pres
 mt time" It further Said There | 1 othing in the case before us tha | ought properly to breed hostility to th'