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. * * * * *