The news & observer., 1898-05-25

chise free. while ii EFFORTS from the lat
ter the full rates allowed by the law
the extortng consisting in making those
least able to bear it, pay the cost OF
Transporting. That position of the de
fendant cannot be sustained.
''On the other contention that the
company was ignorant of the provisions
of the law, and that it had no intention
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 to violate the law upon
the part 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 pas
scnger the piece of paper which sucur-
ed his free transportation; that his in
tentions should be inquired into?
! probably some local attache.
What notice does the law take of his
intentions or purposes in the matter be-
| fore us? The thing which was denounced
| by the statute. and for which the de-
| fendant is indicted, is not the act of
giving the free pass. The mere handing
| to the passenger the piece of paper on
!
| free, but the act Of transporting the fa-
vored passenger without charge, or the
| payment of fare The law would be
violated if no pass was actually issued
! if the passenger was carried free.
"The favored passenger might be
| known personally to the conductor or
he might be made known to him by pre-
concerted signs or milage books distribut
ed gratis. or sold at reduced rates. and
in other ways the law might be violat
ed But we leave the matter of the
handing over the pass by the officer TO
the passenger and his intention in SO do
ing, as it has no bearing in the case.
IF there is anything" says the court
"well settled by the decision of this
court it is that whenever an act is
denounced as unlawful by a statute, the
doing of that act constitutes the Of
fence. and the intent with which it is
done is immaterial
Many cases are here cited to sustain
this position. As to the plea of ignOr-
ance the court cites many cases showing
that ignorance of the law excuses no
one
Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
and the vicarious ignorance of counsel
has no greater value" is quoted from
State VS.. Downs, and the following is
quoted from State VS.. Dikens:
"If ignorance of counsel would excuse
violations of the criminal law, the more
ignorant counsel could manage to he, the
more valuable and sought for, in many
cases, would be his advice"
1T is not too much to say in judi
cial opinion" says the court, that the
defendant is represented in its legal de-
partment by many of the best equipped
lawyers in the country, and it would be
a most violent presumption to say or
even TO think that they were not thor
oughly posted as to the laws, State and
Federal, concerning the interest of their
clients under this statute. Through their
counsel the defendant must have been
acquainted with the act of Congress con-
cerning Inter State Commerce and the
ruling of the Inter State Commission
upon that act, and that act in section
is in the very words of the fourth sec
toin of the act of our General Assembly.
(chapter 800. acts Of 1S91), the law un-
der which the defendant is indicted.
The defendant could hardly be ignorant
in fact of the decided cases reported by
the Interstate Commerce Commission
on the matters about which the defend
ant is before the court"
Many Interstate Commerce Commits
sion decisions are here referred to by
the court, showing that free transporta
ton to a person not in the excepted
classes was illegal Reference is here
also made to the evils growing out Of the
undestricted employment Of free passes,
which influenced Congress to eradicate
the whole system from Interstate Com
merce in order to put an end to the
abuses which had grown beyond the
limits of any other regulation or control.
Reference then is made to the third an
nual report of the Interstate Commerce
Commission. and the part of this report
hearing on the question is literally quot
ed The investigation of the subject by
the Interstate Commerce Commission
as it affected the Boston and Maine
Railroad. Interstate Commerce report,
vol. ), page 60. was referred to, and a
portion Of the Commissions report is
quoted showing that the Inter State
Commerce Commission regards the Civ
ing of free passes to any persons except
those belonging to one of the classes exg|
cepted in section p of the Interstate
Commerce Commission act is unlawful.
The decision of the Federal court in
the case of Harvey against the IL. and
n. Railroad Company, reported in vol.
3, Interstate Commerce Commission re-
port, is cited and quoted as follows:
The fundamental and pervading pur-
pose of the law is equality of treatment.
1t assumes that the railroads are en-
gagged in a public service and requires
that service to be impartially rendered.
1t asserts the right of every citizen to
use the agencies which the carrier pre-.
vldes on equal terms with all his fellows.
and finds an invasion of the right in
every unauthorized exception from
charges commonly imposed No form Of
favoritism, and no species of partiality
seem more odious or indefensible than
that which accords to personal influence
or public station privileges not enjoyed
by the community at large The free
carriage of certain persons merely be-
cause they occupy official positions or
have acquired some measure of distinc-
tion. offends the rudest conception of
equality, and contrayenes alike the
policy and provisions of the statute"
In closing the opinion, the court says:
I'm the face of the clearly expressed
provisions Of the law, and in the face