The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-06-02
GRAnTlNG FREE
PASSES UNLAWFUL.
TINE SUPREME couAr 50 uEcsOEs
AND susrAins IvpssEaT OF TINE
loWtR ceURT.

AND SUSrAiNS jvDeoEAT OF TINE
lowtR ceuRT.
ignessnee of Law NO Exeus~-D Diserimina.
tion IiiegaI-Th@ language of the Rail-
road Csmm'ssien act Very Piaia-Eia~
afsi.ooo Impo.ed by Lower O. art .. Con-
Armed.
The d. cifi, ,ns OF the Supreme
court, in what is known as the "Fres
PSes eases" where handed down last
wssk. There we're two cases, one
against the Southern railway and
one against the Raleigh and Augusta
Air Line railroad company, the acts
in the two cases bein practically the
sane. and the special verdict" OF
the jary the same. The opinion Of
the eour. was written by Justice
Montgomery, and is based upon the
case against the Southern railway
company.
The same decision, however ap-
plies to the case against the Raleigh
and Augusta Air Line railroad, and
in both cases the Judgment of the
lower court was affirmed. These
two cases went mp from Wake coun-
ty Superior court, where . special
verdict was found, the jury fodine
that while the law had been violated
there had been no intent on the part
of the officers of the defendant com.
pany to violate the law.
The lower court imposed a foe of
ST. 600 on zach company and appeals
were taken.
The court, after quoting the spe-
cial verdict of the Jury and the Sec
ton of the Railroad Commission Act
under which the indictment was
brought. says,
1.-The question presented for our
decision Is, does the act prohibit and
make indictable the giving of free
transportation to passengers by COM
mon carriers?
Upon its face clearly it does, not
in all cases, because in section 25
the giving of such free transporta-
ton or transportation at reduced
rate, to certain classes of persons
therein particularly specified, is al
lowed, but the person who received
free transportation in this case did
not come within either of the excep-
tions of the statute"
The court then goes into details
of the points brought forth. It sayA
"In our opinion, section OF thS
Act, in plain words, prohibits the
making Of greater charge against
another for like and contemporan.
eous service under substantially sim
liar circumstances and conditions,
applicable to the carrier of both
passengers and property, the lang
uage is so clear that he may read
who runs
"On the contention that the COM
pany was ignorant of the provisions
of the law, and that it had no inten-
ton to commit the offence with which
it is charged, and the finding by the
jury in the special verdict that
There was no actual intent OF
the officer of the company issuing the
pass"
The court says:
"Who WAS the officer of the com
pany who issued the pass' Who put
into the hands of the ''dead head
passenger the piece of paper which
secured his free transportation; that
his intentions should be inquired
into?
Probably some local attache
What notice does the law take of his
intentions or purposes in the matte,
before usi The thing which was de.
nounced by the statute, and fol
which the defendant is indicted, il
not the act of giving the free pass
The mere handing to the passenger
the piece of paper on which was
written the privilege of riding free
but the act of transporting the ia
| vored passenger without charge. o.
the payment of fare. The law woult
be violated if no pass was actuall!
issued if the passenger was carrie,
free.
"The favored passenger might b
known personally to the conducto
or he might ke made known to hin
by preconcerted signs or mileag
books distributed gratis, or sold a
reduced rates, and in other ways tn
law might be violated. But we lsav
the matter of the handing over tn
pass by the officer to the passenge
and his intention in so doing, as
has no bearing IN the case.
"If there is anything" says tn
court, "well settled by the decision
of this court, it is that whenever q
act is denounced as unlawful by
statute, the doing of that act const
tutes the offence, and the intent Wit
i which it is done is immaterial."
/ Many cases are here cited to su'
tain this position. As to the plea Q
Ignorance the court cites many case
showing that ignorance of the la
excuses no one.
| In closing the opinion, the ccul
says:
"In the face of the clearly e,
pressed provisions of the Law, and j
the face of the repeated constructio
of that part Of the Federal statute
regulating Interstate commerce
which IS in precisely the same word
in which our statute is framed up0r
1.-The point now before as. the defent
ant took its chances.
Il l" It has in doing so violated Il
! criminal law OF the State, and mu
abide the consequences, as all othe
ought to do who break the laws.
!, must be presumed that eOmmon ca
riers know we'll what they arc doir
, in this matter. They are not, ar
. neither do they wish, to be eonsi