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

"Yon'll make this verdict comply with
the law or you wont make 1T at an saiu
Mr.. Pou. ....
Col. Andrews who had been sitting
quietly by with his back to the jury anu
d smile of great superiority ana lnuci i
scorn of the whole proceeding Oh
his face. now got up and went over "
holm his attorneys reason with tne sollci
tor and Mr.. Douglass.
This was the first quarter OF an nour.
The Colonel seemed to be unable 10
accomplish anything and so tlpt. Oh
nav got on top of table, and looking
e,dlv toward the retiring railroader
said. Cant you put any dependence in
tha honor of our client. You've got to
hngin trusting somebody somewhere.
we don't want to take any advantage
OF you.
half hour had now passed and Mr..
Rusbee went over and communed with
Cant. Chas. Price, who was present to
witness the Southern's great victory
while Capt. Day consulted the judge
Solicitor Pou and Messrs. Douglass
and Cook consulted among themselves.
At the end of the three-quarters OF an
hour the following agreed verdict was
adopted by both sides, and submitted TO
the jury:
State VS.. Southern Railway Com
pany.
1.-THE Jurors being chosen, tried ana
sworn to try the issues between the
State and the Southern Railway Com
pany. find their verdict as follows:
THAT the defendant is a corporation
carrying on the business of common
Al Hnf Of dNArnIln1
and.operates railroad part of which line
lies between the cities of Raleigh and
Goldsboro in said State.
THAT during the year 1897 the defen-
dent, through its vice-president, issued to
one Hiram II. Grant, who was a mem
her of the General Assembly of North
Carolina, an annual free pass, which was
accepted as valid for transportation in
the State of North Carolina. That on
the first day of July, 1897, the said Hi
ram T.. Grant, was, on the presentation
of a trip pass, transported free by the de-
PENDANT between the city of Raleigh and
the town of Goldsboro in said State. That
upon the train there were other persons
who paid for their transportation at
the rate Of three and a quarter cents per
mile for first class passengers. That dur
ing the greater part of the year 1897,
passes were ISSUED to the Chief Execu-
tive and to the State officers and to the
members of the Railroad Commission,
as they had been for many years previ-
ollsly, and were accepted and used by
them in the same manner as the said
Grant.
''1hat the members of the Railroad
Commission are charged with the duties
as set forth in chapter 800 of the Acts
of 1891. That the officer of the de-
PENDANT company who issued the trip
pass, and the officers of the said COM
pany, were advised by counsel and by
members of the Railroad Commission
that he was not violating the laws Of
the State. There was not actual intent
TO violate the law. upon the part of
the officers OF defendant issuing the
pass.
1.-THE jurors aforesaid being Tlnlearned
in the law, and being unable to say from
the facts found above whether the de-
PENDANT is guilty as charged i'm the in
dictment, or not guilty, submit the same
to the court. If, upon the foregoing
facts the court shall be of opinion that
the facts found constitute the offense as
charged in the indictment, then the ili-
Tors for their verdict say that the
defendant is guilty; But if upon the
foregoing facts the court shall be Of the
opinion that they do not constitute the
offense charged in the Indictment, then
the jurors for their verdict say that
the defendant is not guilty"
Exactly the same verdict was agreed
upon in the Raleigh and Augusta Air
Line case with the name of John III.
Pearson substituted for that of Hiram
l.. Grant. and the two cases were ar
glled as one.
After some higgling about the argll-
ment) the solicitor and Messrs. Douglass
and Cook insisting on disposing of the
cases. and the railroad attorneys asking
further time) the judge ordered counsel
to proceed.
Mr.. Douglass was the first speaker.
lie began by insisting that the super
huOlhs parts of the verdict be stricken
out. Touching that part stating that the
Governor had been riding on passes, and
the Railroad Commissioners had advised
their issuance, he said: 1T has moth
ing to do with the case 1t doesn't mat
ter who secured the passes, or who
advised the taking of passes. The
1u'StipH VI cdHliOl COfilt INTO llflS
case. A corporation can have no intent"
The anti-pass clause of the State Rail-
road Commission act was, Mr.. Doug
lass said, exactly the same as that OF
the Interstate Commerce act, except
that the latter Furnishes the officers,
while the former Furnishes the corpora
ton itself. Several eases constituting the
Interstate free pass law were read,
holding that the issuance of free trans
portation to anybody was a violation of
the act. Among the cases cited were:
In re Boston VS.. Maine Railroad Com
pany, Interstate Commerce Reports,
Vol. v, page 90; Slater VS.. Northern
Pacific Railway Company, VOL H.,
page 800; Griffin VS.. Burlington and
Maine Railroad. Vol. H.. page 301.
I'm the Slater case the Interstate
Commission, without dissenting voice,
has declared: THE statute waws I'M
doubtedly framed to prohibit passes or
free transportation of persons, as one
of the forms Of unjust discrimination.
favoritism and misuse of corporate pow
ers.'
IF these decisions are law, then the
defendants are guilty; if they are not