The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-05-28

puTuenS are cdSt Wnlcn are Hul
 cast upon the other"
 Again:
 While good faith and a knowl-
 edge of existing conditions on the
 part of the legislature is to be
 presumed, yet to carry, that pre-
 sumption to the extent of always
 holding that therA must be some
 undisclosed and unknown reason
 for subjecting that individual or
 corporation to hostile and discrim-
 mating legislation. is to make the
 protecting clauses of the fourt-
 teenth amendment mere rope of
 sand, in no manner restraining
 state acts Classification to
 relieve law from a charge of q
 denial of equal protection cannot
 be made arbitrarily, but must be
 based upon some difference which
 bears just. a proper relation to
 the attempted classification"
 Gulf c. & S. F. R. R. vs. Ellis, 16.
 |. s. 150-154.
 Southern Railway Co., ys Greene, 2lt
 T. g. 400
 Again In Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe Railway vs. Matthews 174 U. s. l05- 104, the court said:
 "On the other hand 1t is also
 true that the equal protection
 guaranteed by the constitution
 forbids the legislature to select a
 person. natural or artificial, and
 impose upon him or 1t, burdens and
 liabilities which are not cast upon
 others similarly situated.
 Neither can 1t make a classification
 of individuals or corporations
 which is purely arbitrary and im-
 pose upon such class special bur
 dens and liabilities Even where
 the selection is not obviously un-
 reasonable and arbitrary, if tho
 discrimination Is based upon mat
 ters which have no relation to the
 objects sought to be accom-
 plished. the same conclusion of un-
 constitutionality is confirmed"
 For some years prior to the enact- ment of the statutes complained of the rela ton of the Alabama railroads to the public had been much debated in the press. on the hustings and in the legislative halls It was asserted on the one hand, and denied on the other, that many of the railroads were charging exorbitant rates upon watered capitalization, that they exercised a pernicious influence in the political af- fairs of the state, and that they should be regulated in various ways. The plat form of the dominant party, upof which were elected the governor ano members of the legislature of 1907, de handed among other things,
 "Further Legislation fixing reason able freight rates, not to exceed the present freight rates in this state. and the establishment by law of freight rate on all the articles of common man ufacture, production, consumption and use, not to exceed the present class ificatfon and rate of such articles in the state of Georgia, which state shall not be increased but may be reduced by the railroad commission of this state. or by the carriers themselves
 sWhen the legislature assembled ir regular session. fin obedience to wha' Is esteemed the popular will, it enact ed the statutes regarding the passenger mileage and the 110 commodities act and among other statutes enacted ons providing that any carrier contestine the reasonableness of the rates in the federal court, or which removed a case from the state to the fede fl court should forfeit its right to do intrastate business, and that it's permit in that event should be cancelled by the sec retary of state, and that thereafter 1t should not be lawful for 1t to dc lntrastate business until the corpora ton paid to the secretary of state "a sum in cash equal to one-tenth of one per cent of it's capital stock.
 SOUTHERN RAILWAY UNDER
 DURESS
 Before the passenger rate act and the 11o commodities act went Into effect, the chief railroads in the state, insisting that the rates were very reasonable filed their bills in the federal court to enjoin their enforcement. The preliminary injunctions then issued were not contested. The state authorities acquiesced in the view that bills of complaint were not suits against the state, and that the court had juris- diction. Pursuant to the power granted by the statute the court, upon exactins irdemnifying bonds to shippers and pas sengers, not only enjoned the statutes under it's equity power, but suspended them, so that they were no longer in force pending a final decree. and their non-observance could not be violation of the laws of the state. In the latter part of July, 1907, the Southern railway re- moved a case from the state court to the federal court at Birmingham. The twin companion of that statute had already been declared unconstitutional by this court, and a like statute was afterwards declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. No injunction had been asked con corning the enforcement of this statute. and when the Southern railway removed the suit the state authorities took the position that 1t was fin rebellion against the laws of Alabama, and could not dc business between points in Alabama un- til it's privileges were restored in accord ance with the act heretofore recited. Ac- cordingly the state authorities threatened the arrest of it's employees and ruin of its business if it charged higher rates than those allowed by the statutes com plalned of, or did any intrastate business and the railway company under duress needed to the demand of the state au- thorities to put the rates into effect without prejudice to its right to relief on q final hearing. It presented a petition to the court on August g. 1907, allowing it to do so. in which it formally protesSa that it had not violated any law Of the state. in making the charges 1t did. or in removing the case, and that while II realized the grave sacrifice it was making of its rights. 1t yielded solely because of it's proper sense of It's duty to the peace and good order of Alabama"
 Although none of the other railroads had violated the unconstitutional statute in question and were all operating under the protection of the injunction from this court. the executive authorities. contrary to their former position, then began to assert that the court was usurping juris- diction and invading and insulting the sovereignty of the state by the injunction issued. and that it was the duty of the sheriffs solicitors and other state off cers to arrest and imprison the opera tives of the different railroads, in de- fiance of the orders of the court. because they were committing offsnses against the criminal laws of the state by charging