The copper era and Morenci leader., 1913-03-07
FEDERAL COURT INDICATES
 ARIZONA

HIIEUVH
 San Francisco Judge sustalrs Attor-
 rey General in Contentious.
 Following the action of the United States Circuit court of the Fifth District Judge Sloan this 'morning dismissed the complaints of the ne gro train porters against the cor poratton commission, the attorney general and various other law officers of the state and the Santa F'e Rail road company. The circuit court several days ago handed down a de- cision refusing to take jurisdiction in the case before fs and vaeated the temporary restraining order ia the suit.
 The suit is distinct victary for ths stata of Arizoaa and for z, At toraey General GepTg4 P. Ballard, who fought the casa from, it's in- ceptior la the iecat federal court to it's ceaorl1ston and argument De- fore thu Unitsa Staees circuit court iA San Eraneisco on gHnuary 27th. The decision whicA was vatten by .Jndgs7, Wm. Morrow. sustained each and every coateotioa cf the attorney general and vindfcated tAs state of ArizoHa in. it's right to exercise po- lies power within thS state.
 The suit haa it's origin after the last election when the people of Arizona refused to anapl By use of the referendum the full orew bill Soon afterwards several train portsrs running on the Santa Fe railroad between Albuquerque and Wnslow, petitioned the federal court for an order restraining the state or it's officers or the railroad company from enforcing the measure. A tempor- ary restraining order was issued un-i til the case could be disposed of in the circuit court. By the decision of the circuit court this order is discharged and the law is again in full effect.
 The suit was first placed for hear ing in San Francisco on the 7th of January. Many things intervened to prevent the hearing of the case at this time and it was put over until the 27th of January. The attorney general went to San Francisco on this case and was faced by an array of attorneys for the railroad, for in reality the suit was brought by the Santa Fe against the state, though in name it was a party of the defense.
 The arguments lasted practically all day and the Arizona attorney acquitted himself with great credit before the San Francisco court. The court was composed of Circuit Judges Morrow and Gilbert and District Judge Dietrich. The opinion in the case was written by the first named jurist and states clearly the grounds and reasons for not sustaining the petition on the contention that the law was in contrivance of the fourteenth amendment of the consti- tuition of the United States.
 That part of the decision which has the most direct bearing on the case is as follows:
 'The right to contract for and re- tain employment in a given occu- patton or calling is not a right se- cured by the constitution of the United States, nor by any constitu tion. It is primarily a natural right and it is only when a state law regu- lating such employment discriminates arbitrarily against the equal right of some class of citizens of the United States, or some class of persons within it's jurisdiction, as for eX- ample on account of race or color, that the civil rights of such persons are invaded, and the protection of the federal constitution can be in voked to protect the individual in his employment or calling.
 The complainants' case is not within this protection. They have not been deprived of any of the equal rights of citizens or persons. The state law applies to all persons alike, without discrimination, whe- ther citizens of the United States or persons within it's jurisdiction, and it is plainly regulation, enacted