The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1906-06-19

# ia tk48AR& A38&e 49, 4&&
remedy
- ,,h.~n s,n.t
nj I..a
.,,..l..s
!. II COMA
..,r. !.
So ia. Ir{t.1
Sta,a- Thar would nave been the or
DERBY course a. followed b> the At
.lantic coast Lin. i'm the selma counec-
tion ease and the exception and appeal
| would have had the effect - I super
Sedeas cndin the litigation and pre-
venting the imposition Of the penalty
iruposed by statute for q violation 81
tn order. Yet the ecourSe WAS to
Purnell. who was asked in effect. in
determining the issue Of the injunc-
ZION to pass upon Questions OF Law and
facts which are the province of the
regularly appointed commission. courts
and iuri.s Of the State 10 decide. In
other words. 10 override the courts Of
this State and AXE the matter out
Of their hands, and to override also
the statute and the decisions 81 the
ttIISI tSS tlIo III 80 N2aA al
50 doing.
We will attempt To cite but a very
few OF the decisions Of the United
states slnr4rnp C0urt unfolding the
section 12o Of the Revised Statutes
and applving To cases analogous t.
that under discussion.
T. hola hava,ar IL N.cha,a -
- tQ2 chiaf T,stice Enlla, WRITING
tho oninion that where ? railroad
oon mission had ,ha nower n Fl, rates
aaa ~. aleo oivan -, ctatnta > aeane
Of enforcin1 encb rates when made
an Injunction to prevent the suits Of
enforcement would not lie from the
Federal Judiciary the remedy of the
railroad bv the ordinary processes of
the law being adequate in such case.
In the bill set forth in that decision
it is alleged that the law was uncon-
stitutional, that the railroad was i'll
danger of a multiplicity Of suits, that
the commission was unconstitutionally
assuming judicial functions, almost a
parallel in fact to the bill upon which
Judge Purnen issued his order. Yet
TO all OF TINS the CLlel justice salu:
"Conceding that the mere fact that
a dulv enacted law is unconstitutional
does not entitle a party to rellef by
injunction against proceedings IN com
pliance herewith, it is contended TIA
ground of equity jurisdiction existed
here in the want Of adequate remedy
h,v the nd n n nv T,rnaaCGac- nf aur for
the threatened consequences Of the
exercise OF the power. However,
all this may be, W. think it is not to
be doubted that these bills cannot be
maintained if it appear that the com
mission is charged with the duty OF
enforcing the orders it may make fN-
ing rates. The objection that be
required to exercise judicial functions
in determining that the companies
have charged or received more than
a just or reasonable rate goes to the
validity of the act. The fixing of
rates is essentially legislative in its
character and the general rule is that
Legislative action cannot be interfered
with by Injunction"
The analoov hatvae, that case and
the exercise Of IT'S functions by the !
" Observation-Disclosures 80,
~ ""i . ohe
be apparent. The question IN the
Kentucky case was the character of
~ nou-ar - ;mnaca ro+aS. il tho
North c,rolino caSa tho character Of
tho o.,a a;vaa h, tba act - ,aoulata
aaoa path ,,a,v ,ao;e
~ 49,
id'lNe luletiohs' anu as such thelr
enforcement cannot, according TO
Chief Justice Fuller, be interfered with
by Injunction, especially when such
enforcement is provided for in the act
bv which the commission was created
II the legislative power was dele |
gated. And the objection that to do !
this he commission is sreunired IN
exercise iudicial functions'' is without
III