The French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1896-1912, 1907-12-12
DECISION RE-


down It's decision IN the rate case
from Wake county, which was car
ried up by the Southern Railway
when Judge B. f. Long imposed
upon it q fine of $50, 600 for violat-
ing the passenger rate law enacted
by the General Assembly of 1907.
The court sustains Judge Long
upon every phase of the matters
in controversy except 81 to the
fine and Chief Justice Clark says,
in a dissenting opinion. that the
lower court was correct in this
particular, also. The defendant
company sought to reverse Judge
Long altogether, but the court de-
9 otherwise, while holding that
the fine imposed is not in accord
ance with the spirit and purpose
of the law. This construction re-
lieves the company of the fine, but
subjects it to penalties demanded
by anyone who is called upon by
its agents to pay a rate in excess
of 81 cents. The News and OBJ
server sums up the opinion in the
following manner:
81. It afirms Judge Longs rul-
ing requiring trial at the July
term, the railroad contending
that it did not have proper time
60 make it's defense.
8, Tt declares the contention of
the Southern Railway untensble
that, the Federal court having as
sumed Jurisdiction of the subject
matter, the State could not lndict
for violations of criminal actions.
8. 1t declares that the,act of the
General Assembly is self-execut-
ing and that Judge P~ritchard's in
junction was against the State of
North Carolina and therefore in
conflict with the Eleventh Amend
ment of the Constitution.
4. It reverses Judge Long upon
the indictment of the Southern
Railway, holding that the statu-
ate, having prescribed the penal
ty-quasi criminal for the bene-
dc of the party aggrieved, the rail-
road is not subject to indictment
under the section which is terms
made the agents indlctable."
Thus it appears that, in the opin-
ion of the court, an agent of a
railroad company may be indicted
for selling tickets at the old rate,
but the company itself cannot be
dealt with for authorizing such
action upon the part of it's en-
ployes. The court stands four to
one in favor of this contention
and men learned in the law, as our
Supreme Court Justices are sup
posed to be, ought to know what
they are doing. However, Chief
Justice Clark q different view of
the affair and gives plausible rea-
sons for reaching the conclusion
he does in the matter. In his dis
senting opinion the Chief Justice
argues that:
"If one man commands another
TO strike d third person and his
command is executed andphysical
injury results, the person who
gave the command may be indict-
ed alone, or jointly, for the bat
tery, and this though the first
party may be liable also for actual
aud punitive damages. If any
other person or corporation that
the defendant railroad procured
or induced the defendant Green to
violate this law, Or any other law,
it will not be denied that such}
person or corporation would be in
dlctable with Green. Upon what
principle is,it that this railroad is
exempt from punishment for the
Identical act which would be GRIM
inal if committed by any other
corporation or individual in'the
State"
This is, admittedly, good logic
and the railroads themselves, we
believe, prefer to suffer the conse-
quences following violations of the