Kingsbury County independent. (DeSmet, Kingsbury County, S.D.) 1894-1929, 1907-09-06
NORTH CAROLINA MUST
BOW TO UNCLE SAM
'ederal Judge Pritchard Rules
Against State in Famous
Rate Case.
TIE CONSTITUTION FIRST
urist Says No Legislature Can De
prive a Citizen of a Nation
al Right-lnjunc-
tons Stand.

Asheville. n. c., Aug. 30.-JuGge
t%ritchard, in the United States circuit
court, in a long expected opinion an
nounced in the rate case of the South
ern railway against the corporation
| commissioners and the attorney gen.
eral of North Carolina. upholds the
jurisdiction of his court in the ISSUANCE
of the recent injunctions against the
officials during the railroad rate con-
~troversy, and declares the suit Is not
one against the state within the mean
ing Of the eleventh amendment TO the
federal constitution.
no Power 20 Deprive.
That amendment holds the judicial
power of the United States shall not
extend to any suit against a state by
citizens of another state. The decision
say that a state legislature cannot so
frame an act as to deprive a citizen
of a right v~ouchsafed him by the fed
eral constitution. 1t does not possess
the power ito deprive this court Of
its jurisdiction and the sooner those
questions are definitely determined the
better it will be for all parties con-
cerned."
The decision holds that the corpora
ton commissioners are still charged
with making rates, the only limitation
upon their power being that they shall
not make a maximum rate In North
Carolina in excess of IA cents per mile.
Guaranteed by Constitution.
THE corporation commission and the
attorney general are specially charged
with the duty of securing the enforce
ment Of section 4 of the passenger rate
act, which provides heavy penalties and
fines for failure Of railroads and their
officials to comply with that act" All
laws in existence and the passage of
that mt 1Naa rftr ~, StttNnpxirtnta nN1
control Of railroads, etc, are to be
construed in connection with the rate
act.
1T is inconceivable," the decision
says, that a circuit court of the United
States in the exercise Of its jurisdiction
should be powerless to afford a remedy
TO one who seeks to assert a right
which is guaranteed by the constitution
Of the United States. This is i'm no
sense a suit against the state, nor can
1t be successfully contended that the
state Is in any wise a party in inter-
est in so far as the merits of the con-
troversy are concerned.
Not the Purpose Intended.
1T cannot be reasonably insisted that
this is a suit to prevent the state from
enforcing any right which it possesses,
nor can it be said to be a suit TO compel
the performance OF an obligation of the
state. nor does it in any wise involve
q matter in which the state has a pc
2uniary interest, the parties In interest
being the complainant on the one side
and the travelling public on the other.
Therefore the questions presented
are not such as 10 warrant the as
sumption that this court is without
jurisdiction, and a careful study OF the
circumstances attending the adoption Of
the eleventh amendment, as well as the
end to be obtained by the adoption of
the same, show c~onclusively that those
who were responsible for it's abortion
never dreamed as a mean of depriving
an American citizen of a substantial
right conferred upon him by the con
stitution of the United States" +.