How far practice had departed from the equitable principle that all
remedy in the State Courts must be exhausted before complainants might
appeal their case to the United States Courts, is emphasized by the
impression amounting almost to a sensation, produced by the decision,
on November 30th last by the Supreme Court covering the Virginia
railway rate case, wherein an injunction had first been obtained by the
corporation from a lower Federal Court, preventing the enforcement of
the two-cent rate prescribed by the Railway Commission of the State.
This restraining order was passed May 14, 1907, and the effect thereof
was to prevent the exercise of the Railway Commission’s legitimate
control over the passenger traffic of their State until now. The
rebuke to Federal Judge Pritchard, who granted the injunction, in the
reversal of his findings in favor of the railroad comes from a source
which the American people have desired to esteem as their highest
source of justice, and will have admirable effect. Not only will it do
much to allay the irritation and the distrust which has been growing
for many years against this tribunal, but it will have most salutary
effect upon insolent Federal Judges and ruthless corporations. The
injunction has been their sword and buckler. Ignoring the State Courts,
they have rushed to obtain injunctions against the enforcement of any
measure they happened to dislike. Armed with the premature mandate of
a Federal officer, they have defied public opinion and the sovereign
authority which created and nurtured them. A firm check on the abuse of
the injunction, had become a crying necessity, if the public were to
respect wise injunctions and uphold the law.
The decision has been hailed with what could honestly be called
“pleased surprise”—so many disappointments had led to the belief that
corporate interests were obliged to triumph. Wide-spread approval
has been accorded the ruling. In a few instances criticism has been
proffered, to the effect that the points over which the case originally
occurred are unsolved and that the question of railroad regulation is
as misty as before. These are matters, however, which do not touch the
principle of State’s redress first, which was universal before the
misconstruction of the 14th Amendment made possible such usurpation of
authority as the one for which Judge Pritchard has been called down.
* * * * *
Other interesting court decisions have taken place within a short
period. The New Jersey Court of Appeals, for instance, has considered
a knotty problem relative to its collateral inheritance law. Philo
Miles, a British subject, died in London, leaving a considerable amount
of stock in a New Jersey corporation and the lower courts held that
the tax could be levied upon same. The Appellate Court negatived this
conclusion on the ground that personal property which includes stocks
and bonds must follow the situs of the owner and be taxed “there and
there only.” They held that if every State could levy an inheritance
tax upon the full estate of the deceased, his personal property being
returned in the inventory of the executor or administrator, the estate
of the deceased could be taxed as often as there were States in which
he chanced to have personal property at the time of his death. This
would, of course, be inconceivable.
It would be helpful to know just how England, which has a National
and effective inheritance tax, will manage with the property held in
New Jersey by the late Mr. Miles. Much of the wealth of her citizens
is represented by stocks in American corporations, mortgages upon
American property and like personal effects. Possibly the heirs are
more scrupulous in returning such property for taxation than are our
own rich men, who think no wrong of sending out of the State all
personalty for long enough to swear tax statements that are true in the
letter, but utterly false in fact. To evade municipal taxation, they
do not hesitate to take their securities outside the corporate limits
for a day or so. The owner of a home or farm may not escape bearing
the burdens of government, but those who derive annual fortunes from
dividends upon “personal property” go scatheless.
A national inheritance tax, with stringent provisions to enforce it,
would go a long way toward evening things up.
[Illustration: A SOCIAL CALL _New York World_]
“Holland Making Faces.”
[Illustration: TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT
The hand of the law will get old John D. himself yet.
—Minneapolis Journal.]
Dainty and attractive are the naval maneuvers indulged in by the little
Queen of Holland against the Venezuelan government these days. If not
to the entire satisfaction of The Hague, at least they will win her
high plaudits from the Red Cross Society. For where was ever such
consideration shown as has been displayed by this firm, feminine foe
to the blustering South American President? That he has been perfectly
horrid to her, all will admit. It is true that he has been entirely
within his rights in that trans-shipment decree, for the regulation
of the internal commerce of his own country is a prerogative which
the most modest executive might safely claim; but it is likewise
indisputable that it has seriously crippled the thrifty Dutch merchants
of Curacoa; and, anyhow, Castro need not have been so overbearing
about it, which was no way to handle a situation of that delicacy. He
should have admitted that he was wrong, begged forgiveness and then,
of course, _she_ could have been no less magnanimous than to have told
the sturdy burghers of Williamsted that they must cease to cry over the
milk that somebody else had a right to spill; she would have outdone
his courtesy by her sweetness and all would have been well. But some
men even when Presidents, fail to understand that women are women, even
when queens, and so he was uncouth when the situation simply begged
for _noblesse oblige_. Nevertheless, when Castro fell ill, Wilhelmina
deferred her vengeance until he had gone to consult European surgeons.
No rattling of guns or clanking of sabres if the enemy had a headache;
no furore that might disturb the quiet of his citadel.
Now her fleet sails nattily over the Caribbean, to the vast interest of
vice President Gomez, left in charge of Venezuela, and of the world at
large. To coarse, husky individuals, this seems a strange proceeding,
perhaps, but those cast in more delicate mold will realize that
Wilhelmina kept the navy tied to her ample apron strings till now, lest
the clatter of wooden sabots over the hard, white decks, might make
Castro nervous.
Seriously, it seems that Holland is doing little more than making a
demonstration the purpose of which is uncertain. After simmering so
long, the trouble between the two countries could hardly cool off,
with dignity to Holland, without revocation or modification of the
shipping regulations, intervention by other powers or a goodly show
of resentment. If Holland is saving her face by the latter means, who
could be sorry? No one doubts the courage of her people, nor that
they would be met by no mean resistance in attempting to shell the
Venezuelan forts and brave blood should not be spilled in a cause that
seems so entirely within the scope of arbitration.