The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-14

ment of the prohibition is . matter which lprofoundiy Gneets the tintefsst of the public as, well ,asx the rights and for tunes of indtyiduals From the very nature of tke onssfions and the snteg- onistic views Of msns ss to, the pounds ment and the scope of the rieht cf personal liberty in such mAtlses, siti discussion is saiwatss ( sttSndeds Iitk public, unrest and excftsnnSnt. ,ss -s = ',
 ss-The validity ss of the ststHts ie . ( question, of which ' the hfef1- :, est court of the state ID the sole arbt- ter and It's 'decision is binding on ali thesworid Itsis probabIs that the s9u- prsnie Court of the State will soon pass upon the questicn. The siaw Sis now being measurAbly ' Cbserved. z If this court, on the theory ..tfat the pro hibition statute j is unconstitutionai. should issue a. prelimlhary tntunction. and the Supreme Court Of the state should afterwafds uphold the validity of the law, this court would Shave to retyacs Its steps, and dismiss the bih.
 Under such ,circumstancss, the. issue of preliminary in5ufction would not be . kindness even eto those whose bus mess has been destroyed by thevopef- atlon of the statute. If they should re-enter the business under:the protoc- tfon Of preliminary Injunction, and the highest court of the State .should hold the. law stos be valid, parties who engaged In the business in the inter val, would Z De subject ito indictments and puhishment, and bettprosecuted%si Y In the state courts. the moment the pro- teetions of ths preiiminaty. inJdnction sr such "a change in tconditioSs.s sspe- cially lin communities whose focal au- thorittes from. the time of their foun- daticn down a to the present day; have been permitted, to control such mattefs according 2to Athe zj,1d gin1ntL and wishes of the people most ttnmedia teiy con cerned, and have therefore, permitted the carrying on sof the 'occupktfon. would only bring about further bisi- ness and ssociAr unreet -ahd distsfrbancs of public tfsnqnility. These'zsr .coh- sequehcess which no soprt can overlook In deciding upon the gfanting Of . pre- liminary injunction ' and ffhey far< out weigh any injury which an .tin1dividuai may suffer from being deprfyedfof the right to enter the. sbussnoss. if.Efts be found to exist. in hths short intsryat necessary to get . decision oe4the Su- prenie couft of the State. The situa- tion presents case where the rights of the individuaf must yield tot consld- erations of public welfare. Nf4 . t-fss ~ ts " f0Stt%Asrs8t tbAtN~ nt180 SoAetAfC litigation. for aiiF concerned. .to wait upon the. judgment of the rhtshest court of the State; s' <T afN@ y .Ss s....ssas
 Tt is not snecessary now to- consider what may be the dutysof the. court as; to acting on It's own independent 'tudgmsnt # cofnplainant be unnecessariiy deiAy- ed in geftingia decision from the high est court of the State. ,si1sE..
 The defendante sse have avowed in open court their irtentions to aid in bringing to ia5speedy t,decision. in the Supreme Court Nof Aiabana some one of the several applications for man- damus brought by, other parties Co tob- tain licenses in thescounties, of Mobile, Dallas and Montgotpery. Thisx court cannot doubt that that high court win speed in. bringing to a fhai cenciusiona question which Tor the public good should be. speedily set at rest... sg-.s:;; ' !
 "Cpuhsel for respondents may draw an order refusing .comrieinant's. rao- ton for q preliminary. .sinippction, with leave to renew 1t at some later date as 1t may, be, advised in nsview1 of the pos. tpre2 of the litigation sconcernipg thIs matter in the State courts, sWtnslow V. B. & O. R. R. Go, s1ssiUSS.. 6ei." t..