The semi-weekly messenger., 1907-12-06
fSpecial to The Messenger. }

(Special to The Messenger.)
Raleigh, y. c., December 4.-The
supreme court of North Carolina has
handed down its decision In the cell
ebrated rate care against the South
ern railway. The opinion was writ
ten by Mr.. Justice Walker, one OF
the ablest and most learned of the
Judges who have sat on the bench
of this state The opinion Is con-
Cured in by Mr.. Justice Connor,
Mr.. Justice Brown and Mr.. Justice
Hoke. and is a very elaborate and
exceedingly able discussion Of the
matters involved in this well known
controversy.
II will be remembered that the
Southern Railway Company was in
dicted at July term, 1907, Of the
superior court of Wake county along
with one of its agents, Mr.. Thomas
E. Green, for the violation of the
act of the general assembly OF 1907.
fixing railroad passenger rates at
2A cents & mile.
The case was tried before Hon. b.
F. Long, one of the judges of the
superior court, and upon the trial,
the defendants were both convicted.
The railroad company was fined
100000 and the agent was fined SO.
The railroad company appealed to
| the supreme court of the state. Dur
! ing the trial in the superior court
the railroad company filed copy of
| certain proceedings in equity in the
| circuit court of the United States,
| together with copy of the injunc-
j ton issued by Judge Pritchard re-
I straining the state officers from put
! ting into effect the rates fixed by
the general assembly upon the
ground that they were contiscatory
The agent, Mr.. Green, was taken into
custody by the judge of the superior
| court in person, in order to prevent
the circuit judge of the United States
from releasing him upon habeas cor
pus.
The attempt upon the part Of the
| federal court to enjoin the enforce
ment of the criminal laws Of the
state created intense excitement
throughout the state and great IN
terest throughout the entire country.
Large numbers of persons who IA
vored treating the railroads with
much more liberal terms than have
been accorded to them by recent leg
islation, were equally hostile to any
usurpation upon the part of the fed
eraI courts of the right to restrain
a sovereign state from the proper
administration of it's criminal laws,
especially in view of the fact that
the defendant could not be denied
) the right, if dissatisfied with the
, judgment of the state courts, 10 take
it's cause through these courts to the
supreme court of the United States.
There was much talk of a clasf
between the federal government ane
the state of North Carolina and L
was said that Governor Glenn mac
openlv declared that he would cal
out the militia of the state TO op
2 nose the execution of any process
, which Judge Pritchard might 1ssu
| for the purpose of restraining or co
arcing the courts or public official
of North Carolina.
Il It was charged by the railroa
? | company that the judge OF the su
| perior court rushed them into trla
upon only a days notice and refuse
= to give them time to prepare thel
. defence. The defendant cOntende
further that the filing of the injun6
ton issued by the federal court ma
e the effect to stay all proceedings
r | criminal or otherwise-in the stat
courts and to oust their jurlsdlctlo1
1t was further contended the
[ while, under the act of the genera
: assembly of 1907, the agents OF tn
e railroad company were liable to II
] dictment for selling tickets at
! greater rate than 2 n cents that, I'll
y der the express provisions OF tn
it act. the railroad corporation OF ltse
8 was not liable to indictment IN
!, much as, under the terms of Sc
Il ton 4 any railroad company viola
e ing the provisions of the act sha
e be liable to penalty of $500 II
# | each violation thereof, recoyeraD
by the person aggrieved in a civ
- action.
o 1t is contended by the defendal
n that the legislature thereby clear
h expressed it's intention to discrln
n nate as to the consequences al
y method of punishment between
n violation of the act by the railro;
rs corporation, as corporation, ana
al similar violation by its agent
al The case was argued before e
lg supreme court of North Carolina
at September 18th. There has be-
lg some criticism in the newspapers
at the state because this court has be-
It. so long in handing down its dec1sio