The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1898-06-14
BASED ON INTENT ALONE
AGREES WITH THE COURT on
THE IILEGALIT1 OF FREE
PASSES.
COULD BE NO CRlMlNfL INTENT
When the Railroad Commissioners Accepted
Free Passes Themselves and a Hun
bred Thousand Others Ac.
cepted HEM.

copied Them.
Justice X. NJ. Douglas on Saturday
after adjournment Of the Spring term
filed a dissenting opinion III the rail
road free pass case.
The News and Observer printed last
week IA synopsis of the decision of the
majority of the court in an opinion writ
ten by Justice Montgomery.
Justice Douglas declares that be
agrees with the court that the issuance
of free passes is unlawful, and only dis
SCENTS on the question of criminal in
tent. His dissenting opinion is as fol
lows:
No. 132. Wake County, State VS.. South
crn Railway Company. Douglas, j.,
dissenting:
feel compelled to dissent from the
Judgment of the court: but in doing so,
| wish to express by unqualified concur
renee III the able opinion of Justice
Montgomery. except in 50 far as it neceS-
sarily conflicts with what is said herein.
That free transportation, under what
ever device it may be given, is prohibit
cd by the act of 1891. unless covered by
the statutory exceptions, is unquestiona-
Bile; and ] am glad that it has now been
settled by Il unanimous court. Such Il
construction IS in strict accordance with
the settled rules Of judicial interpreta-
ton and with the highest principles of
public policy.
ct is currently reported that a hun
bred thousand passes were issued in the
state of North Carolina within the
year 1897. OF our three leading
railroad systems, one reported over
fifteen thousand passes issued, while
another reported thirty thousand. The
defendant herein. the largest system of
all, and having Il direct pecuniary in.
tcreSt of vital Importance before the
legislature. refused to make any report.
relying upon its legal exemption from
compulsory self elimination. Taking
the estimate of 100000 passes as cor
rect. as it is 391 miles from Raleigh to
Murphy on the west. and still further
TO Elizabeth City on the east, it is fair
to assume that each pass would repre-
sent at least one hundred miles Of travel.
equal 10 $50 in fare. This would rep
resent the equivalent of S323,O00 4
year given to somebody. but to whom we
do not know, and for what purpose we
need not inquire. These figures may not
he correct. but they are the best Obtalna-
bic under the circumstances.
1t is needless to suppose that transpor-
tation Of such great %pecuniary value
would be given without some return, eth
or present or pToSpectiye: and in any as
! peCt its continuance would be unjust TO
the public interest. and dangerous TO the
public welfare. Free transportation to
so large an amount would necessarily
place an additional burden upon the
travelling public to make up the def
cheney. while its irresponsible diStribu-
ton would be Il serious menace to pub
lie morality. So far, | fully concur in
~ .t
q person charged with crime. it is re
qHlSite. not only to determine that Il
crime is committed, but also that the de
PENDANT IS guilty of the crime.
The defendant here admits the free
transportation, bat pleads want of in
tent. Ordinarily the admission of the
forbidden act would be conclusive evi
dencc of guilt; as in misdemcanors, at
least, the intent to commit the act is
the criminal intent, unless the statute
itself constitutes the intent the Craya-
men OF the offence. In this action, how
ever, there seem to me so many peculiar
circumstances that have never happened
before, and may never happen again. as
to take the case ont of the usual rules
Of construction. and force us to regard
it sui g%eneris.
If the act itself forbade the issuing of
passes III express terms. it would be an
end Of the question. But it does so ONLY
by implication. rs is shown in the opin-
ion OF the court. It is drue, it seems to
us a clear and necessary implication;
but it evidently did not seem so to the
higher officers of state and members of
the Legislature who accepted these
passes.
We can scarcely ask Il clearer insight
INTO the law and 4 nicer sense of pro
prlety from the sollless corporation.
than we do from those who make and
enforce the law. This act was ratified
March ,, 1891. more than seven wears
ago. Since then we have had four diff
fercnt legislatures. three governors and
seven different railroad commissioners.
as well as two complete sets of solicitors.
| 40 not mean to mpute any improper
motive to these men. many of whom |
personally know. and whose names and
characters are too we'll known to need
any vindication from me; but is it not
possible that the defendant may have
been honestly misled in issuing passes
To them from the mere fact that they
would receive them?
The giving of Il pass is only nahum pro
hibitum, and not nahum in So. and IS
neither as to the one that receives il.
There is nothing innately wrong in If,
further than that it is prohibited by law.
and may lead to dangerous abuses. More
over. section , of the act under consid-
Grafton provides that the railroad com
mlssloners shall make such lust and
reasonable rules and regulations as may
be necessary for preventing unjust dis
crlmlnatlon IN the transportation If
1felght and passengers on the railroads
in the State"
1t was the imperative duty of the
commission without any outside s,g-
gestlon. to make all just rules necessary
Tor carrying out all the provisions of the
act, the proper enforcement of which
was the sole object of their official OK
1stence. We have held. in Caldwell IS.
Wilson, III n. c. 425, 472, that the com