The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-07-18
LORD COLE TALKS LAW.
lie Wants the COnStitutiOnality Of a
Legislative Act Decided.

he Announces That He Was the Hon
estest Member of the Plant System.
a Verdict For the Defendant In the
Murphy Damage Suit Against the S.
F. & w. Railroad-Cr Criminal Week
In the City Court.
Lord Cole was advcrtised.toe xpatiate
in the city court yesterday at 4 O'Clock.
There was a good audience, but
there was good deal of Grim
inal business on hand, and it was 6
o'clock before he could get the attention
Of the court.
When that hour arrived Coles case was
called, and he drew himself up to
his full height and began to address the
court. He was surrounded on all sides by
gave them q legal appearance. In
front of him were law books galore,
among which was the ponderous code of
Georgia, from which he desired to quote
to sustain his point. The court officials
all gathered in the courtroom to hear
him, and as the balance of the audience
had departed, there were very few pres
ent at the famous hearing. The audience
was an interested one, however.
did not fail to catch any point
that he made.
He announced first that he had been
given untruthful reasons for his discharge
from the S. f. g. w. railway, and those
reasons, he said, he had denied on oath.
THE PLANT SYSTEMS LOSS
Mr.. Cole then made the interesting
statement that he the most bOnaet
employee connected with the Plant system,
of which he was for so long a time an eff
ficient member. He had proof of this
fact.
Why" said he, CT once checked an
OverchGrge while was an employee of the
railroad, and that money would have
gone into the company's pocket" -
MIR. Cole said he appreciated the high
Endorsements he had received since he
had been in America, and he wanted the
court to take cognizauce of them. He
complained that the counsel for the de-
tense had tried to argue the case without
notice to him, and remarked upon the
fact that Judge MacDonell had very
promptly given that matter his attention.
Under the act, as have shown your
honor, " he said, II have brought this
case up properly, and it seems to me that
your honor would take no notice of such
a fiimsy defense as regards that de-
murrer.
MR. COLE RELATES THE FACTS.
81 will now relate the facts in the case.
In February my duties were considerably
increased. called on Mr.. Youmans, ex-
planning to him at the time that l had no
desire to override the Plant system, but
asked for an increase of salary. [ was
working a gang of seven colored men at
81 80 per day and they were getting more
than myself. [ got a letter from Mr.
YOumans stating that / would be dis
charged if [ applied to the superintend-
ent for an increase of salary
Judge MacDonell reminded Mr.. Cole
that the question was upon the consti-
tutiOnaiity of the act under which he
brought his suit.
Mr.. Cole suggested that having shown
that the notice had been properly served
under the act he would prove that the
reasons given him were false and he
would ask for damages.
II claim that this act is constitu-
tional one and not an unconstitutional
one" he said land if your honor
sustains this demurrer is it not possible
that other acts of the legislature will
be open to contention2
II trust that your honor will see after
hearing my humble argument that the
defendant has not made out case, and
think YOUR honor Will not take upon your
self TO rule out of this court law of the
legislature which they would not have
passed if they had thought it unconstitu-
tional.
MIR. CHISHOLM ARGUES THE CASE.
Mr.. w. S. Chisholm took up his same
line of argument on the cOnstitutlonality
of the act with regard to the disagree
ment between the caption of the act and
its body. He brought QUO the fact that
there was no mention or indication in the
caption of the act of the penalty which
the act itself inflicted for non-perform-
ance.
Judge MacDonell asked if the indication
of some penalty for non-performance,
were not contained in the word require
which appeared in the caption, as it
would seem if a person were required by
law to do a thing under certain circum-
stances, there would necessarily be Il
penalty for noncompliance.
Mr. Chisholm differed with the court.
A requirement. he said, did not necessa-
rily indicate that penalty should be at
tached for noncompliance, as the court
had power to require compliance by writ
of mandamus. There was a difference be-
tween the requirement to comply with an
actand the infection of a penalty for non
compliance These, he said, were two
different subject matters, ana the actw
thus unconstitutional MIR. Chisholm also
argued that the fine was an excessive one,
which was also contrary to the consUltu-
ton
MIR. Cole introduced few authorities