The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-06-12

for carrying out all the provisions of the
act. the proper enforcement of which
was the sole object of their official ex
istence. We have held, in Caldwell VS..
Wilson. III n. G. 425, 412. that the COM
mission is an administrative and not
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 commission
is merely an administrative board Great
ed by the State for carrying into effect
the will of the State as expressed by its
Legislature" 1t is their duty to actively
enforce the law. and to prevent, and If
necessary prosecute all violations thereof
tnat may come to their knowledge in.
any manner. They are the active instru
ments 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 presentment
make of all it's violations. Any other
contraction of their powers and duties
would destroy their usefulness and make
the commission mere excrescence upon
the judicial system of the State. As a
court. their powers are very limited; but
as a commission they are charged with
grave and responsible duties of the
greatest Importance to the State, and are
clothed with ample powers for their per-
Torrance. While they may be COM
PEELED to appeal to the courts for the
ultimate enforcement of their dcci-
sions. they possess powers beyond the
jurisdiction of any court, and which, if
properly exercised, may be made of in
estimable value to the people. The mere
fact of thorough investigation, and con
sequent publicity, of existing abuses, will
strongly tend to their correction. The
jury find in their special verdict: "That
the officer of defendant who issued the
annual pass, was advised by counsel AMI
by members Of the railroad commission
that he was not violating the law Of the
States" that there was no actual in
tent to violate the law upon the part Of
the officer Of defendant issuing the
pass"
'fhey further find that during the
year 1897 passes were issued to mem
bers of the railroad commission, which,
using the plural must mean n majority
of the commission, of whom there are
only three. In a case of doubt where the
act was not expressly prohibited III
words by the statute, to whom better
could the defendant have gone than TO
those charged in express terms with its
enforcement? What more positive an
swer could it have received than the an
swer of majority Of the commission
that it was not unlawful, coupled with
the personal acceptance of a pass.
do not question the integrity Of the COM
missioners. 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 misled?
The possible results Of an adverse de-
cision to the defendant are practically
beyond calculation. If it has issued fifty
thousand passes 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 it to penalties of which the mini
mum would be sixty millions of dollars
and the maximum three hundred mil
| lions.