The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1906-06-26

II
tended to Sue For Il Penalty For
...,n.,n. con
enCc ana Practically Fails to Deny
HIS JURISDICTION 10 NulllIy It's Pro-
.a.dino. at Pleasure pou
anu
euuthern.s Attn,nevc EI.tol
General Hog Killing" To the
shame Oh the commonwealth.
me 'ilict Oh Judge fufneil yes
t,tti3E morning. the answer Of II Cor
.,Iatfnu Commission Of North Car,b-
tL. ,,l - l.
' W ~ ~ re"9i"I court
H' framing IL from bringing an action
4u accordance with the statute cuabl-
.., il u, u,ta f,, r.,aIt,, f,, ,ial.
..'" VI - 'tN0i" was lodd ny Altoi-
H"s -''eIIoIal dlIllltf.
The commissioners admitted they
hal ,n ,,o.ar a,f.o ~
,"oH "a
'E SUING l'i d peIlalIy ana the Sult was
Dismissed at defendants cost.
In effect the answer stated that at
rI.. TINA IF n,oki,u rho ,,,a. a.
~ 'O ~ I''
'uJHtIH ltdllWay lle commissioners
neither believed they had the
5,u.r nor intandod m i,
,..t a,i+
''"' ""S ""' - ' PV""i'S III case
d "d@ dISobeyed unless the railroad
.H"Hld nave permitted ten days to
'Htp5e without filing exceptions to
u'h order or should have failed for
ten days to appeal from q subsequent
order Of the commission oVerruling
.ucn exceptions.
Further it was answered that the
Commission had not attempted to ~
ti'ISe JuuicldI powers, but had pro-
o"rded in accordance with the act UNI
der which 1t was created; that its OF
der was legal: and that it might have
been complied with by the southern
railway without danger to its desired
connections at Greensboro and Sails
bury which it alleged as its reason for
n"n-compliance. 1t was contended
that the order was not in violation o.
the constitution or laws of the United
states with respect to Interstate com
tlcrce ana That the commission IN
making it was proceeding upon pA-
ujlons alleging the breaking of a long
established connection etWee the
Neaboard ana southern ItallWaYS at
Raleigh and in pursuance of its gener-
al powers of regulation and superVl-
SION OF ana the specific pow
rrs conferred upon 1t to compel as
close connexions as pfacllcaple Dc
oNNt AOA 49,
of the travelling public. The history
of the case vas set out, including the
lHung OF the peullollS, lhe making Oh
the order tofblddlnS the Soutneri |"
break the connection until a tulI N
FeStig&tiOn could be had of the facts,
the restraining order issued by Judge
PurneII, the subsequent WlthdfaWal OF
the petitions ana the consequent as
mlSsal of the proceeding by the com
MISSION.
.I2DXTnnf the D1ll MI r. q & q a
want of jurisdiction in the court there
MAS ne contention as to the want OF
power in the Federal Court 10 restrain
thr bringing of the suits Tor penaitleS'
me COMMISSION relying upon the Ia
mat. since the main contention IN lhe
bin of complaint filed by the southern
i'm the Federal Court was the fear Oh
SUITS for penalties they had by tnelf
denial of any intention OF attempt
ing to enforce their order, made a
complete to the
sol the bill which called tor a dlsnllSsal
of the action.
An answer had also been filed by
Mr.. r. c.. Lawrence. Of Lumberton,
which was read by Mr.. POu IN Whlcl
lie stated that his connection with lhe
natter arose solely by reason OF nus
IlNIns signed a petition at the requeS'
paper; that he had no interest in the
.utltrr and that he insisted lldI nc
Ia,i not become liable Tor costs. ..
Air. t'ilr1cr spoke at some ME
ir0&ih IN defense Of the power OF the
commission to make orders WIN re-
-I""l to railroad connections ana deny
I.@ that the order was interference
yum Interstate commerce us alieSSt
Sta the bill of complaint. He declared
that the order had merely dlfecl"I
4."j the connection be preserved ana
IIal this could have been done by the
3"lIIpad without e~ndangcfln% us
''t""u@boro and salisbury connexions.
th 81 long experience with the cofpof-
"'I"h commission, he said, ne h4d
".|er knoWn it to sue for a pehaItS
without giving the railroads every OF
#~""lunity TO except and appeal; tn h4
l"'E had not intended to do so IN TINS
stance and that their answer was re-