The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-06-30
COMER'S SAYINGS
 DON'T COUNT
tcostin.ea From Pass 1)

DSAN OAv . (Contfnsed From Pags 10
 to which it can always resort. It raises no impertinent issue, and merely places the proclamation and message conven- fently at hand for tho court. If the case be found a proper one in which to consider them.
 The respect which each of the great departments of the government owes. and. ordinarily. accords. to the action of other coordinate departments. is founded upon the highest considera- tions of the public good. The courts have taught it since the days of Mar shall. It has become a canon in our jurisprudence. The importance of its observance has been emphasized, with here and there an exception, by the example of a long line of illustrious public servants, who have exercised legislative. executive or judicial func- tions. in the state or nation, from the earliest days of the republic down to the present time. The legislature may listen to whom 1t pleases as to the ne- cessity or policy of legislation. The Governor is under constitutional duty to recommend measures for it's consid- eration. Neither Is accountable for their motive to the courts. Aside from the impracticability of determining the particular motive in a given case, 1t would be offensive in the extreme for one department of the government. when called upon to deal with the va lidity or propriety of the action of an-
 other department, to challenge and scrutinize it's motives. Once this Is permitted, harmony and cooperation between the several departments of the government would be at an end, and In time the whole government would be brought into contempt before the peo- pie. The motive of the Legislature. or of the Governor, in the passage and approval of laws. as distinguished from the intent of the legislation. Is not a fit subject of inquiry in the courts. Whether the Legislature be moved pri- marily on it's own initiative, or at the instance or pressure of others, Is not of the slightest consequence What ever 1t does is none the less the exer- else of legislative power. It's action must stand, no matter what the motive which led to 1t, if in the enactment the Legislature has transgressed no pro- vision of the fundamental law, State or Federal. The issue is one of power, not of motive. When an enactment is F challenged in the courts, the sole in- quiry is, what has the Legislature &C., tually enacted, and Is it forbidden by the fundamental law. The intent of the Legislature IS to be gath cred from the language used. the former state of the law, the evil to be remedied. the ordinary and natural, ef- feet of the operation of the statute upon the right asserted, and whether, when, thus construed and interpreted, the Legislature has transgressed the bounds of it's power.
 Impertinence Alleged.
 "It follows that the several allega- tions challenged for impertinence con- cerning the Governors motive in call ing the extra session, or what he sought to accomplish thereby, or ex- pected to result therefrom, his personal whim, caprice or prejudice in causing certain provisions to be drafted in the statute, his employment of attorneys for that purpose. the statements made by him in unofficial utterances (with the single exception hereafter noted) his interviews in the newspapers, or his letters to members of the Legisla- ture, his denunciation of the com plainants as defiers of the law. and his criticism of them for resisting the leg islation in the Federal courts are iin- pertinent and must be expunged. They are of no more importance and no more to be considered in a court of justice. than would like utterances of any OIHeT person III tuo newspapers UT upon the hustings.
 The other exceptions for imperti- hence are controlled by different prin- ciples. They do not involve inquiry into the motive as distinguished from the intent of the legislative power in the passage of the laws, but, in the main, relate to the administration of the laws. as enacted by the Legisla- ture itself. by a subordinate, adminis- hAIx wi fo They involve official acts, and inquiry as to their ordinary and natural oper- ation upon the rights of parties. there by enabling the court to gauge the reasona bleness of such act and the ef feet the court should accord to them. It Is alleged in the bills that the pow CT given the commission to change and alter rates and classifications fixed by state has been administered with an "evil eye and an unequal hand." to the prejudice of the complainants. In sup port, of this contention, the bills aver that his excellency, the Governor, threatened to cause solicitors and sher- ifs to indict and arrest officers and servants of the carriers for every charge made or collected by them which did not conform to the statu- tory rates. notwiths.a landing this court. by the filing of the bills, to contest the reasona bleness of the rates, had &C., quired exclusive Jurisdiction to decide the matter. and had issued injunctions to prevent interference with the car rers. pending the final hearing.
 "The bills further aver in this con- nection that the Governor, in behalf of the State. contracted with several of the carriers. who originally filed their bills in this court, and who by the stat utes complained of were put on an equal footing with respect to rates and classifications with the complain ants, that if such carriers would abandon their contest in the courts. the public authorities would give them more fav- orable rates and classifcations than the statutory rates, which are sought to be enforced against these complainants. though the carriers thus to be favored were in all practical respects similarly situated as the complainants; and that the Railroad Commission carried out this contract largely by the exercise of its power to change statutory rates and classifeations in favor of the con- tracting carriers, whereby. it is alleged. that in the administration of the rate statutes in the exercise of the powsr of the Commission over them. arbitrary and unjustifable discrimination in classified tions and rates had been made to the prejudice of these compliments. and that the practical administration of the law had the effect, and is intend- ed, to enforce arbitrary and invidious discriminations in classifications and rates to the prejudice of these com plainants. who remain in the court. and to the advantage of. the carriers who