The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-30
AND THEY CAN'T TESTIFY
BUT THAT EVIDENCE MUST BE
TAKEN.
OR THE TAX CASES WILL GO BY DEFAULT
Meeting Of the Attorneys to be Had This Week
Supreme Court of the United States Has
Dared Decide Contrary to Supreme
Court of North Carolina.

No time has as yet been fixed for
the taking Of evidence in the railroad
taxes cases, as ordered in the last decis-
ion of Judge Simonton.
The burden of proof being on the
railroads il is for their attorneys 10
decide upon the time, notify the other
side and if ii is agreeable to them Judge
Simonton will SO order.
The case comes on for trial next June
and if testimony sufficient TO prove the
railroads contention is not taken before
that time, then Judgment must be rem
dered in favor OF the State.
But the railroad attorneys say evil
dence will be taken, and abundant evil
dence 10 prove their case. They eX-
peot To- hold meeting this week for
consultation, and at that meeting the
program for taking testimony Will very
probably be made out
Just at this time the railroads are in
rather a bad predicament as regards
this case.
The campaign is about to begin. The
men that they have been relying upon
and would naturally be their witnesses
TO prove conspiracy (and it is necessary
for them to prove that on the part of
the boards Of assessors, whereby the
value lof railroad property was placed at
q higher figure than other property
these men in many counties are to be
candidates for the Legislature and other
offices. In most of the cases the rail
roads want them to be candidates. But
if they should come ont and swear that
their people had conspired to rob the
railroads they could not be elected, of
course-no matter what their politics.
And this is what is now troubling the
railroads about taking evidence
The Supreme Court of the United
States has just done a very foolish
thing.
1t has dissented from an opinion of
the Supreme Court of North Caro-
lima.
1t has made nice mess of things
by sitting down, hard and fiat, on the
doctrine of i'll pari matera as construed
by our court.
In the case of Hamilton VS. Rath-
bone tappeal from District of Columbia)
We find Justice Brown, who wrote the
opinion Of the court, using these words:
The decisive question then is whether
section 12S is TO be construed as an in
dependent act, or whether the plaintiff
is at liberty, by referring to the prior
act from which it was taken. to show
that it was the intention of Congress 10
limit to the eases named in such prior
act. The general rule is perfectly well
settled that, where statute is of doubt
full meaning and susceptible upon Its
face of two constructions, the court
may look into prior and contemporaneous
acts, the reasons which induced the acr
in question, the mischiefs intended to
be remedied, the extraneous circum-
stances. and the purpose intended to
be accomplished by it, to determine its
proper construction.
But where the act is clear upon its
face, and when standing alone, it is
fairly susceptible of but one construc-
ton, that construction must be given
it. u
Indeed the cases are so numerous in
this court TO the effect that the prov
ince of construction lies wholly with
in the domain of ambiguity. that an
extended review of them is quite llri-
necessary. The whole doctrine applicable
to the subject may be summed up in
the single observation that prior acts
may be resorted to. TO solve, but not to
create, an ambiguity"
If this doctrine had been followed by
the Supreme Court Of North Carolina
in the political cases recently decided by
it. the decisions would have been o,her-
wise than they are.