The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1898-05-31

W3M
ination ontfhe part of therailroad com
panfea based On such class distinctionl
This contention or che defendant III 10
could be maintained, would simply 81
vide the people Of the State not only
into che nheep and che goat, the good
and the bad, and reward or punish
them By giving TO one and withholding
from the others, free paages-but into
those whose influence IS considered
valuable to- the corporations On the
one part, and che remainder of the
people on She otheE and then giving TO.
the hrst named class the privilege OF
using the public franchise free, while
il EFFORTS from the latter the full rates
allowed by the laW-the extorting con.
sisting I'M making those least able 60
bear it, pay the cost of transporting.
That position Of the defendant cannot
be sustained.
"On the other contention that the
company was ignorant Of the provis
ions OF the law, and that it had no Inn
tention TO commit the cffence with
which is charged, and the finding By
the jury i'm the special verdict that
There was no actual intent 20 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 passg Who put
into the hands OF the 'dead-head' pas
senger the piece Of paper which secur
ed his free transportation; that bis in
tentions should be inquired into9
Probably some local attache. What
notice does the law take Of his inten-
tions or purposes in the matter before
usG The thing which was denounced
by the statute, and for which the de-
fendant liz indicted, ID not the act of
giving the free pass. The mere hand
ing to the passenger the piece of paper
on which was written the privilege of
riding free, but the act Of transporting
the favored passenger without charge,
or the payment of fare The law would
be violated if no pass was actually is
sued if the passenger was carried
free.
"The favored passenger might be
known personally O. the conductor or
he might be made known TO him by
preccncerted signs or mileage books
distributed gratis, or sold &C reduced
raves, and i'm other ways the law might
be violated. But we leave the matter
of the handing over the pass by the
officer TO the passenger and his mten.
ton in so doing, as it has no bearing ID
the case.
''If there is anything" says the
court, ''wel settled by the decision 0f
this court, it is chat whenever an actis
denounced al unlawful by O statute,
the doing OF hat act constitutes the
off snce, and the inte t with when it
Ls done ID lmmaCeriaI /"
Many cases are herecited to sustain
this position. AS TO the plea of ignor
ance che court cites many cases show.
ing 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 follow.
ing is quoted from State vs. Dikens:
1T ignorance of counsel would ex
cuse violations OF the criminal law, the
more ignorant counsel could manage
to be. the more valuable and sought
for, in many cases, would be his ad
vice"
1T is not too much to say in q jldi
cial opinion" says the court, s.Uhat
the defendant is represented in ice
legal department by many Of the best
equipped lagyers i'm the country, and
iE would be q most violent presumption
to say or even to think that they were
not thoroughly posted az TO the laws,
State aid Federal, concerning the in.
terest Of their clients under thia
statute. Through their counsel the de
PENDANT must have been acquainted
with the act of Congress -concerninp
Inter State Commerce and the ruling
OF the Inter State Commission upon
that act, and that c in section 2 is ii
the very words Of the fourth secuion of
the act our General Assembly, Cchapter
800, acts of 18D, the law under which
the defendants is indicted. The defend.
ant could hardly be ignorant in fact Of
the decided cases reported by the In
ter State Commerce Commission on
the matters about which the defendant
is before the court" 5