The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, September 15, 1911, Page 4, Image 4
v f"wrw The Commoner. 4 yOLUME 11, NUMBER 35 -5"T i IJ k ( 5 '!, The Commoner. ISSUED WEEKLY Entered at tho Postofllco second-class matter. at Lincoln, Nebraska, Wijxiam J. Utitam Kdltor nml Proprietor Hjchajid I.. Ms.TCAi.nc A worJnto Editor Cjiaiimcs W. 13nvAH Publisher Fdltorlnl Poomn and Business CfTco 224-MO South 12th Street One Year fl.00 Six MonthM J69 In Clubs of Flvo or no ro, per year... .75 Thrre jttontli .25 Sincrln Copy 08 Sample Copies Free. Foreign Post. 5o Extra. ruilSCIlirTIONS can bo sont direct to Tho Com moner. They can also bo sent through, newspapers "which havo advertised a clubbing rate, or through local, agents, whoro sub-agents havo been appoint ed. All remittances should bo sent by postofllco money order, express order, or by bank draft on New York or Chicago. Do not sond individual checks, stamps or money. DISCONTINUANCES -It is found that a largo majority of our subacrlbcrs prefer not to havo their subscriptions interrupted and their flies broken in caso they fall to remit boforo expiration. It ia thereforo assumed that continuanco is desired un losa subscriber order discontinuance, either when ubscrlbing or at any tlmo during tho year. PRESENTATION COPIES Many rersons sub- , scrlbo for friends, intending that tho paper shall atop at tho ond of tho year. If instructions aro given to that effect they will receive attention at the proper tlmo. RENEWALS The dato on your wrapper shows tho timo to which your subscription is paid. Thua January 21, '10, means that payment has been ro- , celved to and including tho last issue of January, 1910. Two weeks aro required after money haa ( Loen received beforo tho dato on wrapper can bo changed. cnANGin a change o. address. OF ADDRESS Subscribers requesting address must glvo old as well as new ADVERTISING Rates application. will bo furnished upon Federal Court and Railroad Managers Address all communications to THE COMMONER, Lincoln, Nob, t : RUDYARD KIPLING'S "IF" Amid all the present day tumult a Commoner reader sends a copy of Rudyard Kipling's poem entitled "If" with the notation, "To W. J. Bryan, with compliments of B. A. Plummer." The poem follows: If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs, and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting, too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Nor being led about give way to lies Or, being hated, don't givo way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise; If you can dream, and not make dreams your master, If you can think, and not make thoughts your aim, If you can meet with triumph and disaster, And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools; If you can make one heap of all your winnings, And risk it on ono turn of pitch-and-toss, And loso, and start again at your beginning, And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To servo your turn long after they have gone, And so hold on when thero is nothing in you, . .Except tho Will which says to them "Hold on." If you can talk with crowds and koop your virtue, Or walk with kings, nor loso tho common touch; If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, ' If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill tho unforgiving minuto With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is tho Earth and everything that's in it, And which is more you'll be a Man, my son. Rudyard Kipling. Grant G. Martin, attorney-general for Ne braska, speaking before tho Lincoln Commercial club, delivered an exceptionally Interesting ad dress relating to federal courts and railroad management. For the reason that the address relates to a recent federal court decision of general concern it will bo interesting to Com moner readers everywhere. Mr. Martin's address was as follows: Tho trend of railroad management is to get a-way from state regulations. The federal courts are inclined in that direction. The effect of their late decisions is to bestow upon the general government exclusive jurisdiction over all matters, affecting the means, instruments, faci lities and rates of transportation companies con ducting a business in more than one state. This system would enable the general government to usurp control over local traffic and rob tho stato of its inherent power to control and regulate its internal commerce and tho means and instru ments which conduce to the same. So far as transportation companies operating in two or more states are concerned, they necessarily act In a dual capacity and render a dual public ser vice. They perform a service originating and terminating within the state and also a service of an interstate character. Now the dual character of this public service requires a dual system of regulation, the one subject to tho state and the other subject to the nation. While the general government is per mitted to reach within the limits of all the states and exercise regulating powers to promote and protect commerce among tho states, nu merous decisions have committed the supreme court of the United States to the proposition that each state has the inherent power to regu late all commerce within its limits of purely an internal character. The state has no right to invade the domain of tho federal government, neither haB the latter any right to invade tho domain of the state. In this connection I shall refer to some pro visions of the federal constitution and the early decisions of the supreme court of the United States in relation thereto. I do this for the reason that inferior 'federal court decisions are tending to federal regulation rather than stato control of public carriers. Sec. 8 of Art. 1 of the constitution provides that congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. It does not say that congress shall have power to regulate commerce in the several states, but among the several states. In discussing the phrase "among the several states," Chief Justice Marshall said: "The completely Internal com merce of a state, then, may be considered as reserved for the state itself." "The internal com merce of a state, that is, the commerce which is wholly confined within its limits, is as much under its control as foreign or interstate com merce is under the control of the general government." Article 9 of amendments to constitution pro vides that the enumeration, in tho constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article 10 of amendments to the constitution provides the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states re spectively, or to the people. Article 11 of amendments to the constitution prqvides: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against ono of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. The meaning of this amendment is plain. The stato of Georgia had been sued in the supreme court of the United States by a citizen of another state. The court entertained the action. This decision led to the adoption of the Eleventh amendment and its purpose was to prevent the states from being sued by citizens of another state. The Eleventh amendment is no new thing, it was adopted in 1798. Our own court has held (opinion by Judge Sullivan) that "tho judicial power of tho United States does not extend to actions brought by individuals or corporations against a state. Tho Eleventh amendment to tho federal constitution would be effectually emasculated if it wore per missions to enjoin or coerce ine agents through which a state performs its corporate functions " (State vs. C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. 61 Neb. 545) Again, our court held that "the circuit court of the United States is without jurisdiction to enjoin a stato from the enforcement of its own laws; that which the federal court is without power to do directly it can not accomplish in directly." (State vs. C. R. I. & P. R. r Co 62 Neb. 123.) "Wherever one, by virtue of his public posi tion under the state government, acts in tho name and for tho state, and is clothed with her power, his act is her act." Ex parte Virginia 100 U. S. 339; Carter vs. Texas U. S. 442. But see 118 U. S. 194. Seventy years ago the supreme court of tho United States held that the powers reserved to the several states extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerned' property and the rights of property of in dividuals, as well as to tho internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state. King vs. American Transportation company 1 Flipp (U. S.) 1, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7. 787. As late aB the 123 U. S. reports the supreme court of the United States said: "The very object and- purpose of the Eleventh amendment was to prevent tho indignity of subjecting a state to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at tho instance of private parties. It was thought to bo neither becoming nor convenient that the several states of the union, invested with that largo resi duum of sovereignty which had not been dele gated to the United States, should be summoned as defendants to answer the complaints of private persons, whether citizens or aliens, or that the course of their public policy and tho administration of their public affairs should be subject to and controlled by the mandates of judicial tribunals without their consent, and in favor of individual interests." In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 504, date, 1887. In order to circumvent the purposes of this Eleventh amendment public carriers have de vised the scheme of having their stockholders begin suit in the federal courts against the companies themselves and, the attorney general of the state to enjoin the enforcement of stato regulations. This in spirit is an action against the state because the attorney general acts only in behalf of the state. Under the state con stitution and the laws of the state he is the law officer of the state. To prevent him from enforc ing the laws of the state affecting public carriers is to stop all machinery of the state government in relation thereto. In recent years the federal courts have gradu ally broken away from their original holdings referred to and are now committed to the propo sition that a suit against the law officers of tho state who are trying to enforce the laws of tho state, is not a suit against the state. These latter decisions in effect abrogate the Eleventh amendment to the constitution. Under these constructions the Eleventh amendment serves no useful purpose. The original theory of the federal constitution waB that state courts construe state laws in the first instance with the right to review in the supremo court of the United States. Under present hold ings many state enactments are enjoined by federal courts before they are considered by state courts. Thus the federal courts have be come places of refuge for every man or interest who sees fit to assail state enactments. It js true that the federal courts hold that suits against state officers aro not suits against tho state when such officers are seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws, but this is answered by saying that a federal court ought to have juris diction of the subject matter of the suit at tho time the suit is commenced and ought not to entertain a suit upon the assumption that state officers are seeking to enforce unconstitutional acts. The decision in tho Minnesota rat case is revolutionary in the extreme. People who comprehend its far-reaching effect upon the rights of the state are astounded. -If congress had brought forth a measure which struck down the right of the states to regulate their internal commerce, every state In tho union would havo been aroused. , This decision is revolutionary because it holds that tho Minnesota rato reductions, thougu applying only to commerce within tho state, ihterfero with Interstate commerce, and, henco violate the federal constitution. For over ono hundred years, the supreme court of tho unitea States has held that tho states had c1"8,1 control over their Internal commerce. Du"J; all that time, practically all railroad regulation v K ,