The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-07-30

specified IN the act of the legls-
lature. The defendants in the
latter case have been ordered by
a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter not to sell
tickets at a less price than the
rules of the road now require.
Should any agent CT that ON
pany disobey that order or the
president of other nigh official Of
the same order such agent
to ignore the courts order, why
whould he not be in open and
fragrant contempt of the court
issuing the injunction? Such
person, we believe, would be liza
bic to a sentence Of imprison-
monet or heavy fine by Judge
Pritchard; yet Governor Glenn
in his proposed basis of settle
ment claims the right to have III
dicted in the state courts any
agent Of the COaS- Line Com
pany for refusal to violate the
express order Of 4 court u con
current jurisdiction.
We give in another column
The New York Times editorial
and below this article the eGi-
tOrials from The Post and The
Journal of Commerce.
In our comment yesterday on the
North Carolina rate conflict we over
looked the fact that the state authOri-
ties we're proceeding in disregard OF
an injunction Of the United States cir
cult court, which puts a somewhat dis
ferent aspect upon the case except IN
regard to the general question OF state
and national jurisdiction, which We
We're th~n discussing 1t seems that
the SCulE- n Railway Company nae
followed the same course that has been
adopted in other States and appItC to
the circuit court for an injunctiD1. IN
granting this, enjOining all prescott
lions and eXactiOn of penalties until
the questions raised could be deter
mined. Judge Pritchard required the
company to issue its tickets with COu-
pons attached representing the differ
ence in case the law should be Upheld.
This was precisely in line with the
action of Judge LacOmbe in granting
an injunction against the enforcement
of the 80 cent gas law in this state. 1t
now appears that under the positive
directions of Governor Glenn the North
Carolina authorities proceeded to dis
regard his injunction and to inSti-
tute the prosecutions which in specific
terms it forbade ignoring the jurisdic-
ton if not defying the authority Of Se
United States courts. 1t was in pur-
suance Of this course that agents Of
railroad at Asheville were tried and
sentenced to the chain gang. This Rs
suited in the application TO Judge
Pritchard for the writ of habeas cor
pus, which he granted. In making al
order for the discharge of the two men
he held the penalty clause of the
North Carolina law unconstitutional
and gave opportunity for an appeal to
a higher court.
But what Governor Glenn apparently
wanted was not a speedy decision Of i
question which would finally have to
be determined by the tribunals of the
United States, but what he considered
a vindicatiOn of the authority and dig
nifty Of b state courts. His position
was that the state law must be cOnsid-
cred valid unil declared to be Other-
wise, and that in the meantime tie
state authorities had the right to en-
force it with all it's penalties. He may
have taken his ground under a sense
of duty, but Judge Pritchard in his de-
ciSiOn makes it clear that it was a mis-
taaken sense, n by persisting in the
course upon which he started the gov
n would make the matter seriously
worse. He would get no sympathy
outside of his state, at least among
those who desire to see an orderly pro-
cedure in judicial matters and the
maintenance of harmony between the
jurisdiction of state and nation. AS to-
which side in such a controversy would
be upheld by public opinion of the
country there can be no doubt. AMI
southern states ought to be Darticu-
larly cautious about provoking it. 1t is
doubtful if such a course as has been
taken in North Carolina would haze
been thought of in any northern state.
There have been two courses open to
United States judges when applied ID
for injunctions restraining the enforce
ment Of these state rate laws on the
ground that they are confiscatOry and
deprive railroads of property without
due process Of law Or deny to persons
the equal protection Of the laws within
state jurisdiction. One of these was
taken by Judge Mcpherson in the Mis-
souri, case in denying the petition until
such time as it could be shown by &C
tual experience that the prescribed
rate was unremunerative. The draw
back about this is that if the ate
prove hnremunerative those subjecting
to the loss would have no redress.
! InGmn Dritnhnnd in taEinn Tho nthn,.