The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-04-07
. Iag CAUcAsGAS.

n.r ether officials of tho Southern
Is wav, iJr violation OF Sec. - Of the
F.. rJaG Commission Act in refus-
..- % answer certain questions
rr,ppunded to them by the Rail
rHd ommissioners relative to
,.H.n assenger and freight traf.
r. - enable the said Commits
-.a.rs to fix Just and reasonable
au. Judge Timberlake held that
o.. delendants could not he convic-
ted and directed verdict of mot
ru,.ty.' This verdict was ordered
upon the ground that the answers
90 the questions propounded by said
a. K Commissioners night elicit an
svcrs which NIGHT tend to criminate
eqrd officials. 1t was contended on
tue part of the defendants that as the
,lui officials may have done the very
nr' for which the railway might be
lep'c TO Indictment, that the railway
officials MiGHT be liable upon the
puacIpal of law, that in misdemean-
or, all persons occupying the posi-
ton Of accessories IN q felony be-
come principals. II the Judge con-
s,ru.uOn of the law is correct the
whole Railroad Commission act is a
farce. 1t leaves the Commissioners
without power TO investigate the do
lDgs Of the Railroad companies. 1t
depriyes them of the power to'e xam-
me u single book or paper belong
ing to n railroad company. Between
the "Nebras ka case" and the decis-
sion in tho a. b. Andrews cases 1t is
"thc play of Hamlet, with Hamlet
Ioft ont A Railroad Commission
with the railroads left out. A court
OF record stripped Of its power to en-
force single order, u child's play of
make believe" The effect of the
ruling is to declare -fourths of
the entire act unconstitutional. In
examining the question let US assume
that the Southern Railway might be
indicted for furnishing Judge ST.
mouton special cars free of charge,
through or by Col. "A. b. Andrews,
would Col. A. Il. Andrews be liable
10 Indictment under Sec. 4 of the Il.
IT, Commission Act? IL Col. An
drews MIGHT be liable to indictment,
IN any prosecution which MIGHT be
brought against the Railroad then
he had u right under the constitu-
tlon of both the United States and
the State of North Carolina to re-
fuse to answer, il he was not liable
to- q conviction for any part he may
have taken in such violation then he
was guilty under section 81 of said
act. Let us see.
SECTION > OF the Inter ate Com
merce Act and section of the Rail
road Commission Act of North Caro-
lima, are identical, to the folio wing
extent
That if any common carrier sub
Ieet to the provisions of this act shall
directly or indirectly, by any specia
rate, rebate, drawback or other de
vice, charge, demand, or collect o.
receive from any person or persons {
greater or less compensation for any
service rendered or to be rendered il
the transportation of passengers O.
property subject to the provisions o
this act than it charges, demands O.
collects or receives from any othe
person or persons for doing for hin
or them like and conte III poraneou
service in the transportation of a lik
Kind of traffic under Substantially sim
liar circumstances and conditions
such common carrier shall be deem
ed guilty of ur rst discrimination
which is hereby prohibited and de
elared to be unlawful"
SEC. 10 of the Interstate Com
meree Act provides for the violation
of the Act as follows:
That any common carrier subj &c
to the provisions of this act, or, whel
ever such common carrier is corpol
alton director or Off icer: thereof or an
receiver, trustee, lessee, agent o
person acting for or employed b
such corporation, who alone, or wit
any other corporation, company, pei
son or party, shall wilfully do Q
cause to be done, or shall willingl
suffer or permit to be done, any ac
matter, or thing in this act prohib
ted or declared to be unlawful, O
who shall aid or abet therein, Q
shall wilfully omit or fail to do an
act, matter or thing in this act r,
CURED TO be done, or shall cause G
wllfully permit any act, matter {
thing so directed or required by tn
act to be done not to be SO done, {
shall aid or abet such omiss sion &
failure, shall be deem d guilty Of
misdemeanor, and shall, upon col
Vlction thereof in any district cou
OF the United States within the j
tsdiction of which such offense W,
committed, be subj ,ct to fine (
not to exceed five thousand dollaI
tor each offense.'
SEC. ! of the Railroad Commi
SION Act Immediately after the sen
ence quoted In the first paragrap
above provides further: That it sha
be unlawful for any common carri
sublect to the provisions of this a
TO make or give, etc.
Now the very fact that section
OF the |. S. G. Act is identical wi
the provision of our II. r. Com. AZ
and that after that section the I.
u Act made further provision
cover the case of employees of q CO
poratlon, is evidence that such Ell
F'~ yOOo WoIo uOI luCiuucu IL IuO B q
eral provision of the l. s. G.. A
which is identical with our own
K. Com. Act. Else the trainers of t
act did vain and unneces sary thil
when they provided for such e
ployees specifically. But as a mi
ter of fact, they did not do q va
tnlng. The individuals-employe
-- would not be included in the &c
eral provision concerning comm
carriers. Even the corporators the
selves would not be individually
able. The corporation is the "co
mon carrier and is the only bel
10 whom the Jaw applies. The G.
poration and the incorporators 9