The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-03-30

ern. dwelt upon the merit of criminal
intent and cited the Massey OF n. c.
case upon the term 'willful."
The Supreme court of the United
States have never yet sustained the de-
cisions of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, as far as he could recall
He wanted to construe the statute ac-
cording to the rule, calling for strict
construction. and here read the statute
and then the Indictment. He contended
that the term unjust discrimination
did not contemplate the taking of free
passes.
Capt. Day declined to speak. saying
he was unprepared to argue the question.
The argument was closed by Solicitor
Pou in an able speech. II cannot
conceive" he said, "how the pen of the
legislator could have more explicitly pro-
hibited the doing of an act than the
Legislature did when it wrote the lines
of this act. The more strictly the
statute is construed the more clearly it
points to the prohibition of the issuance
Of free passes"
As to intent, Mr. POu said that did
not enter into this case. ut doesn't
matter whether it was intended to vio-
late the law or not-the minute the act
is committed that moment the law is
violated. The moment an act is done the
law presumes thee intent--the intent.
says the Supreme court, lis included i'm
the purpose. In the State VS.. Hatch
there is n strong opinion upon this point.
Also the same point is passed upon in
the 121st North Carolina reports (iust
issued in which the town commissioners
of Burlington are found guilty of remoV-
ing dead bodies without due process of
law. This act was done by order of
the commissioners in open session. If
there is an absence of due process of
law then the intent is presumed.
II don't care whether they have de-
sired TO violate the law or not. The law
has been violated. They have discrimi-
mated. 1t is Il discrimination to carry
one man free and charge another 81
cents a mile. ] wanted this special YER
diet to speak the truth. j would have
been untrue to my office had / not in
sisted on its speaking the truth. [
know judges and Governors have been
riding on passes, but that does not
justify the giving of them, no matter
how able were the attorneys that adj
vised the issuance of passes. Ignorance
of the law excuses no one, and the ig-
norance of counsel is likewise no defense.
In that case the more ignorant the coun-
sci the more valuable would be his adj
vice"
Answering objections to the bin Of in
dictment. Mr.. Pou said he has drawn it,
as nearly as possible in the language OF
the statute, and that, according to the
a n
to do.
Mr.. Pou insisted on the evidence that
had been injected into the special YER
dict being stricken out. He said the
clause charging that during the greater
part of 1897, free passes were given to
the Governor and State officers had
no bearing on the case whatever, and
ought TO be stricken out.
Again it says that the Railroad Com
missioners advised the issuance of
passes. This has nothing to do with the
case, nor has the paragraph about the
intent. This done, the State insists that
it is entitled to n Judgment upon this
special verdict"
Judge Timberlake announced that he
would take the argument under con-
sideration and renderu his judgment this
morning.
THE CONTEMPT CASES.
The court now turned its attention to
the contempt cases against Col. A. II.
Andrews. j. b. Munson, III. w. Miller
and X. l.. Potts, for refusing to answer
certain questions asked them, ON Janu-
airy Sth, by the Railroad Commission
concerning free passes and freight dis
ordinations.
The case against Col. Andrews was the
first taken up. Only three witnesses
were xamined--Chairman Caldwell,
Commissioner Pearson and Stenograph.
er Weldon Smith. All swore to substan-
italy the same thing, viz That An
drews refused to answer certain ques-
tons in regard to free passes issued by
him, on the ground that to do so would
render him liable to Indictment
Mr. Btsbee contended that the Wit
ness did right in refusing; that he was
only taking advantage Of the protection
guaranteed him by the Constitution
against being compelled to testify
against himself
Solicitor Pou argued that the COM
potency Of n question was not for the
witness to judge, but for the court.
"Why, it would reduce our courts to
an absurdity il man were allowed to
serenely sit back and say, L decline TO
answer, because it might tend to crimi-
nate me in some way, | decline to say
how
"A few minutes ago, in the free-pass
Indictment, the railroad attorneys con-
clnded that they were not indictable for
giving passes. Now, fifteen mintes later,
they say they refused to testify in regard
to free passes, on the ground that it