126 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Statement of the ? 209 U. 8, t?ken and the n?tter referred to a mss?er to make the needed oomput? tions ?nd to find the neece?a?y facts on .which the court rosy ?et. A stste rate statute is to be re?rded ? p?/? ]?/e valid, and the ? ree? on the oartier to prove the contrary. The tadroad intereete of this country are o! great magnitude, and the thou- sands of Rersons internted therein are entitled to protection from the law? and from the courts equally with the owners of all other kinds of property, and the court? having jurisdiction, whether Federal or state, ehauld st all timce be open to them, and where there is no adequate rem- edy st law the proper course to protect their rights is by suit in equity in which all interceted partice are made defenclants. While injunctions against the enforcement of a state rate ?tatute should not he granted by ? Federal court except in a case reasonaMy free from doubt, the equity jurisdiction of the Federal court has been constantly exerdaed for such purlX?. The Circuit Court c4 the United 8t?te? having, in an action brought by � stockholder of the Northern Pacific Railway Company against the officers of the road, certain ?hJppers and the Attorney General and certain other o8telal? of the State of M/nnceots, held that & railroad rate statute d Minncect? was ?mconstitutional and enjoined all the defendsate from en- forcing ,uch ?t?tute, and the Attorney General having refused to enmpiy with m3ch order, the Circuit Court fined sad committed h/m for contempt, and thi? court refuced to d/?harge h/m on/mbe? corp?. AN original application was nmde to this court for leave to file a petition for write of habeas corpus and certiorari in behalf of Edward T. Young, petitioner, as Attorney General of the State of Minnmota. Leave was granted and a rule entered 'directing the Uni- ted States marshal for the District of Minnesota, Third Division, who held the petitioner in his custody, to show cause why such petition should not be granted. The marshal, upon the return of the order to show cause, justified his detention of the petitioner by virtue of an order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, which adjudged the petitioner guilty of contempt of that court and directed that he be fined the sum of $100, and that he ?hould dismiss the mandamu? proceedings brought by him in the name and behalf of the State in the Circuit Court of the State, and that he should stand committed to the cus- tody of the marshal until that order was obeyed. The case
�
