Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews
Decision Date | 22 June 1907 |
Parties | WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. ANDREWS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Rose Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, Henry D. Estabrook, and Rush Taggart, for complainant.
William F. Kirby, Atty. Gen., and Lewis Rhoton, Pros. Atty., for defendants.
The complainant, a corporation existing under the laws of the state of New York and engaged in the business of conveying messages by telegraph, seeks by this bill to enjoin the defendants, who are the prosecuting attorneys of the 17 judicial circuits of the state of Arkansas, from instituting against it any proceedings for penalties for its failure or refusal to comply with the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of the state entitled 'An act to permit foreign corporations to do business in Arkansas, and fixing fees to be paid by all corporations,' approved May 13 1907. The act is as follows:
The bill, so far as it is necessary to set it out for the purpose of the demurrer to the jurisdiction, charges that the complainant is now, and has been for years, engaged in the telegraph business throughout the United States, and within the state of Arkansas, having fully complied with the acts of Congress which are set out in the bill, and also the valid laws of the state of Arkansas; that it has invested over $160,000 in building and maintaining its lines and offices in this state, and that for certain reasons unnecessary to mention in this statement this act is unconstitutional as to complainant; that for this reason it does not deem itself bound to pay the fees attempted to be exacted from it by this act for the purpose of continuing its business in this state, and which fees, it is alleged, exceed $25,000; that the various prosecuting attorneys of the state in whose districts complainant is carrying on its business, unless restrained by the order of the court, will, as they have threatened to do, institute numerous actions for the recovery of the penalties prescribed by the act, which is no less than $1,000 for each alleged violation. Defendants challenge the jurisdiction of this court upon two grounds: First, that an action for the penalties is a criminal prosecution, and for this reason it is not within the jurisdiction of this court, sitting as a court of chancery, to enjoin actions for their recovery; second, that the action is one against the state, which is not the real party to be affected thereby, and for that reason within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
1. As the act merely provides for the recovery of a penalty, it is, under the laws of the state of Arkansas, as construed by the decisions of its highest court, a civil suit, and not a criminal prosecution, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the state of Arkansas. Railway Co. v. State, 56 Ark. 166, 19 S.W. 572; Kansas City & C.R.R. Co. v. State, 63 Ark. 134, 37 S.W. 1047; St. L., I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. State, 68 Ark. 561, 60 S.W. 654; C., O. & G., etc., Ry. v. State, 75 Ark. 369, 87 S.W. 631. In those cases the actions were instituted for alleged violations of section 6595, Kirby's Dig., digested in Mansfield's Digest as section 5478, and in Sandels & Hill's Digest as section 6196. That act provided for a penalty of $200 for the failure of any railroad company to blow its whistle or ring its bell when at least 80 rods from the place where the train crosses a road. Following the construction of the highest court of the state in the interpretation of its Constitution and statutes, the court holds that this is not an action to restrain criminal prosecutions, but an action to enjoin civil suits for the recovery of penalties.
2. Is this an action against the state, within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment to the Constitution? Counsel for both parties have cited numerous cases to sustain their respective contentions. A careful examination of these cases shows that the supposed conflicting views of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as those of the national courts inferior to that tribunal, are not real, and that, considering carefully the facts in each case, there is little trouble in reconciling these supposed divergent views and arriving at a correct conclusion as to what is now the settled law as declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. The principle as laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 856, 6 L.Ed. 204, that a state is not sued unless it is named as a defendant upon the record, may be said to have been abandoned long ago. To review all the cases determined by the Supreme Court of the United States and the numerous inferior national courts on that subject since Osborn v. Bank of the United States would serve no useful purpose, as the later decisions review all these cases and formulate what must now be considered the law on that subject.
A leading case on that question is In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 487, 502, 503, 8 Sup.Ct. 164, 31 L.Ed. 216. In that case Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Logan & Bryan v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.
... ... et al. No. 1,620. United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division. January 2, 1908 ... (Syllabus by the Court.) ... An ... sustained upon two grounds: First, for the reasons stated in ... Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews (C.C.) 154 F ... 95, this action must be deemed, so far as these ... ...
-
Hampton v. State Board of Education
...Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 29 S.Ct. 458, 53 L.Ed. 742; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52, 6 S.Ct. 608, 29 L.Ed. 805; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Andrews (C. C.) 154 F. 95; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Jones (C. C.) 105 F. McDowell v. Warden of Michigan Reformatory at Ionia, 169 Mich. 332, 135 N.W. ......
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ludwig
...and W. F. Evans, for complainant. W. F. Kirby, Atty. Gen. of Arkansas, for defendant. TRIEBER, District Judge. 1. In Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews, 154 F. 95, this court had occasion to pass upon the jurisdiction national courts in actions against officers of the state, and determi......
-
State v. Giant's Neck Land & Imp. Co.
... ... possession." Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews ... (C. C.) 154 F. 95, 106. Both of these ... ...