Omaha daily bee., 1907-08-28
Federal Court Refuge to Persons in
Defense Of Rights.
SUIT NOT AGAINST THE STATE
Officers Of State Subject to Power
Of Federal Authority.
LAWS OF STATE INVOLVED
In Arriving at His Decision Judge
PFitehard cites North CaroIIna
statute in LitiGstiOn Against
Railroad.

ASHEVILLE. N. C.. Aug. H.-Jl
Pritchard in tile United States eli
court, in a long expected opinion, annou -
today, In the rate case of the Sou :
Railway against the corporation cor :
sion and the attorney general of -
Carolina, upholds the jurisdiction -
court In the issuance of the recent I
tions against officials during the rsi.s.
rate controversy. and declares that the suit
is not one against the state within the
meaning OF the eleventh amendment to
the fedora. constitution. That amendment
holds the judicial power OF the United
States shall not extend to any suit against
state by citizens OF another state. The
decision says that a state legislature can
not 30 frame ain act as to deprive a citizen
OF a right vouchsafed him by the federal
constitution. II does not possess the power
TO deprive this court OF its jurisdiction,
and the sooner those questions are def
nitely determined the better It will be for
all parties concerned"
The decision holds that the corporation
commissioners are still charged with maxi
ing rates the only limitation upon their
power being that they shall not make
maximum rate in North Carolina In excess
of 2h cents per mile. The corporation
commission and the attorney general are
specially charged with the duty OF Sc
curing the enforcement or section 4 of the
passenger rate act, which provides heavy
penalties and fines for a failure of rail-
roads and their officials to comply with
that act" All laws in existence on the
passage OF mat act bearing on supervision
and control OF railroads, etc, are to be
construed In connection with the rate act.
Federal Court n Refuge.
a.
that a circuit court of, the United States
in the exercise OF it's 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.
l,Ghis is in no sense a suit against the
state, nor can 1t be successfully contended
that the state is in any wise party in
interest in SO far as the merits of the
controversy are concerned. 1t cannot be
reasons ably ifssisteds that this Is suit to
prevent the state from enforcing any right
which Il possesses, nor can II be said to
be suit to compel the performance of an
obligation of the state, n9r does II in any
wise Involve a matter in which the state
has a pecunlary interest. the parties In in
terest being complainant on the one side
and the travelling public on the other.
Therefore the questions presented are
not such as to warrant the assumption
that this court is without jurisdiction, and
a careful study of the circumstances at
tending the adoption of the eleventh
amendment as well as the end to be OBJ
tained by the adoption of the same, show
conclusively that those who were respon-
sible for it's adoption never dreamed that
II could be used as a means of depriving
an American citizen of substantial right
conferred upon him by the constitution or
the United States. The eleventh amend
msnt. being part of the constitution, must
be construed so as to give full force and
effect to every provision of the instrument
of which It forms part. Any other con-
struction OF this amendment would prac-
ucally nullify that clause of the constitu-
NON which provides that no state shall
mass any laws impairing the obligations OF
contracts as well as the fourteenth amend
nent"
The opinion shows that the laws OF North
Carolina especially provide upon what
terms an Injunction shall be granted TO
suspend rates pending litigation or IN
volyinR the conhscatory nature OF such
rates; that the statutes of North Carolina
expressly authorize tho course pursued by
the courts when freight rates are involved
I,,t does not even require bond for such
injunction when passenger fares are In
litigation.