The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-01-05
State Corporation Conn
mission Sends Protest
to President.
INTERFERED WITH
ST A TIE COURTS.
Kansas Jurist Took Jurisdictions
in Oklahoma Rate Case, VIC
lating Virginia Decision, and
Transgressing on obliga- 4.
ton of Comfy Be /
tween Courts. ri

Yin the name OIL the rights OF the
States to protection from interference
by Inferior United States courts, and
in the name of comfy between judi
cial tribunals, the Virginia Corpora
tion Commission has protested to Pres
ident Taft against the appointment OF
Judge William C.{fIook, OF Kansas, ia <
Il seat on the bench Of the Supreme
Court of the United States. to succeed
the late Justice Harlan. The protest
was mailed on Wednesday and arrived 3
yestoi day at the White House The
announcement of It's arrival was I'd
ceived b. The Times Dispatch last
night. and upon application copy was
secured from the commission
The protest. which is signed by
Judges Robert r. Prentis, William q.
Rhca and j. Richard Wingncld, gives
reasons which diner from those urged
upon the President from other sources
The case which in the. main is argued
Is that of the Oklahoma railroad rates,
in which Judge Hook took Jurisdiction
while the litigation was still pending
in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Attention of the President is called to
the fact that In the Virginia case the
supreme CourtEofthe United Suites laid
down the rule that it is the duty OF
railway companies complaining of rates
established by State authority to ex-
~
laws before invoking tho equity juris-
dicuon of the United States courts.
Violates Comfy. KS
Chief Justice Fuller referred to tho
comfy which. las applied to Federal
interference with State acts. should be
regarded as an obligation" This COM
ity Judge Hook is regarded as having
violated.
Tho President is further asked to
motto that there Is much unrest In the
public mind growing out of tho fro
quency and facility with which injunc-
tons have been granted by Judges of
Inferior United States courts restrain
ing the enforcement OF state laws.
Precedents are quoted to show how the
supreme Court has rcbukcd such prac-
tees
Finally. President Taft's own hign
Ideals as to judicial appointments arc
invoked.
Judge William c. Hook. now or
heafenworth, Kan. whose appointments
TO succeed Justice Harlan was AK
pected until the recent protests. was
born in Pennsylvania. Io was an
pointed judge of the United States Dis
trict Court by President Mckinley in
1899. and in 1902 President Roosevelt
made him circuit Judge. He partici-
pated In the decisions rendered in the
governments suit against the South
ern Pacific and Union Pachic and IL,
the Standard Oil case.
Text of Protest.
The Virginia protest is in fun as
follows:
January 5. 1912.
To the President. the White House.
Washington, D. c.: r" 4H
Sir.-Thc undersigned CONSTITUTING
the State Corporation Commission
or Virginia. beg leave most
respectfully to suggest that in
our Judgment It would be contrary
TO sound public policy to promote tho
Honorable William C. Hook 10 the SUI
preme Court OF the United States.
Our reason for this opinion differs
somewhat from those which, according
to the newspapers. have been chiefly
urged upon you. This rcar,n is be-
cause we believe that he plainly erred
In taking Jurisdiction OF the Oklahoma
rate case while all the issues involved
therein were then pending and unde-
termined before the supreme Court ,t
Oklahoma.
In taking such jurisdiction nc not
only violated that comfy which
should DO regarded as an obligation,
ny all courts. but he ignored the de-
ciSion Of the Supreme Court of tho
United States in tho case OF prcntis
VS. Atlantic Coast Line. I'll u. S. 10
Hereinafter referred to as the Vir-
Sinia case). and refused to recognizo
its authority The Virginia case estab-
lished the rule that under the Consti-
tuition and laws of Virginia land tile
Constitution and laws of Oklahoma
are substantially similarly. il is tho
duty OF railway companies complain
tns of rates ests blished by State ad-
thortty to exhaust the remedy provid-
ed by tho State laws before invoking
tho equity jurisdiction of the United
States courts. In the Oklahoma case
the railway companies apparently re-
coGHized this rule and appealed from
the commission TO the Supreme Court
OF Oklahoma. and while their appeal
was pending and undetermined in thar
court they filed their bills In the Cir
cult Court OF the United States for
the Western District of Oklahoma and
that court Judge Flock delivering the
opinion. took Jurisdiction. everything
the pleas and demurrcrs OF the State
authorities. Atchson. etc. Railway
Company VS.. Love Ia Federal Re
porter. 90; Missouri, etc. Railway
Company vs. Love, III Federal Re-
porter. 1873.
Federal Interfcrencc.
We protest that this action violated
that comfy which, according to Mr..
Chief Justice Fuller. las applied to
Federal interference with State acta
should be regarded as an obligation
and which forbids any court from talk
ing jurisdiction when another cuort
has first acquired jurisdiction OF tho
parties and the subject raatter o. tho
controversy and condemn such action
as unsecmsy It also, IN our opinion.
violated The rule approved by the