The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1898-06-14

mission is an administrative and not 4
judicial court: and this view IS still more
strongly expressed by the Supreme Court
of the United States in Reagan vs.. Loan
and Trust Co. 154 United States 362.
:397. where it says: "Such a COMMISSION
is merely an administrative board Great
ed by the State for carrying into effect
the will OF the State as expressed by It's
Leeislaturc.' 1t is their duty to actively
enforce the law, and to prevent. and II
necessary prosecute all violations thereof
that may come to their knowledge III
any manner. They are the active instrn-
mcntS of its enforcement and are not
merely required to cOnStrue it upon a
sworn complaint. For the purpose Of
their creative act, they are the grand
inquest Of the State. and should dill
gently enquire and true ~prescntment
make of all its violations. Any other
contraction of their powers and duties
would DESTROY their usefulness and make
the commission a mere eXcreScence upon
the judicial system Of the State. As a
court. their powers are very limited: but
as Il commission they are charged with
grave and responsible duties of the
greatest Importance TO the State. and ar"
clothed with ample powers for their per
formance. While they may be COM
PEELED to appeal to the courts for the
ultimate enforcement Of their deci-
SionS. they possess powers beyond the
jurisdiction of any court. and which, if
properly exercised, may be made Of in
cstimable value to the people. The mere
fact of thorough investigation. and con
se0uent publicity. of existing abuses. will
strongly tend to their correction. The
Jury find in their special verdict: That
the officer Of defendant who issued tho
annual pass. was advised by counsel ana
by members of the railroad commission
that he was not violating the law of the
State:" that there was no actual IN
tent to violate the law upon the part of
the officer of defendant issuing the
pass
They further find that during the
year 1897 passes were issued to mem
bers of the railroad commission, which.
using the plural, must mean a majority
of the commission. of whom there are
only three. In Il case of doubt where the
act WAS not expressly prohibited in
words by the statute. to whom better
could the defendant have gone thar to
those charged in express terms with its
enforcement? What more positive an
swer could it have received than the an
sver Of 4 majority of the commission
that 1t was not unlawful, coupled with
the personal acceptance of a pass. !
do not question the integrity Of the COM
mlSSlonerS. They were doubtless hon
estly mistaken. misled perhaps by the
universal custom throughout the United
States: but so also may have been the
defendant. Is it not fair to say that
it was innOcently mislcd?
The possible results of an adverse de-
clSion to the defendant are practically
beyond calculation. If it has issued fif.v
thousand passes a year for the two years
within the statute. it is not probable that
over forty thousand were issued to the
excepted classes. leaving at least sixty
thousand violations of law. This would
subject 1T to penalties of which the mini
mum would be sixty millions of dollars
and the maximum three hundred mil
lions.
ct is true this may not be the result
Solicitors may not prosecute. the eXecu-
tive may pardon or the LEGISLATURE NAV
condone: but with this | have nothing to
do. Upon the special verdict rendered
in this case. and in view of the excen-
tional circumstances that force Them
selves unon our attention.. / think tbat
the defendant should be held not puiItr
! purely upon the ground of intent. This