Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1907-08-28
Federal Judge Uph0|ds JuPisdiCt.
lon Of His Own Court and Gives
Warning to The Public.
DECISION IN NORTH CAROLINA COURT
Uses as His Authority Eleventh
Amendmcnt-s,a Legislature Can
not SO Frame an Act as to Deprive
Citizen of Constitutional Right or
Deprive His Court of Its Jurisdiction
an AssocInted Prnssl


ASIIEVILLE. n. C.. Aug. 27.-Judge
PrltchnrG, In Tho United States Cir
cult Court. in il longcNpcctcd opin.
ion. announced today in tho rate case
of the Southern railway against tho
corporation commission ana the Mt
torncy general of North Carolina. up
holds the jurisdiction of his court In
The issuance in the recent injunctions
against officials during the railroad
ratio controversy and declares that
the suit is not one against the state
within the meaning Of the eleventh
amendment to The Federal constitu
ton.
That amendment holds the judicial
power of the United States shall not
extend to any suit against state by
citizens of another state. Tho do
cislon says that state legislature
cannot SO frame m act as to deprive
n citi2cn of right vnuchsafcd him
by tho Federal constitution ana
by the Federal constitution ana it
does not possess the power ito do
privo this court of its jurisdiction
and the sooner those questions are
definitely determined tho bottcr 1t
viii he for all parties concerned"
Tho decision holds that the corpora.
lion commission arc stlll charged
with making rates. tho only limitn-
ton 'ipon their power Icing that they
shall not mako maximum rate in
North Carolina in excess Of . Ia cents
per mile. Tho corporation commits.
sion and tho attorney general arc
specially charged " with the duty OF
acquiring tho enforcement OF section
Of tho passenger rate act which
provides heavy penalties and fines
Tor failure of railroads ana their
officials To comply with that act "All
laws In existence on the pnssngc of
that act bearing on supervision and
control of railroads, etc. are to be
construed in connection with tho ratio
net.
III Is conceivable" the decision
says, that II circuit court of the
United States in The exercise of it's
jurisdiction should he poVcrcss 10
afford remedy to ono who socks
to assort right which Is guaranteed
ny the constitution OF the United
States. This is no sonsc suit against
me state nor can ii he successfully
contendcd that the state is I'm any
wise narty in interest insofar as
mo merits of the controversy are CON
cerned. 1t cannot be reasonably in.
sisted mt this Is 4 suit To prevent
Nnr s'nie from enforcing any right
Whlcl II possesses nor can Il I've said
10 be suit To compel the performance
Oh an oblisAtion of the state. nor docs
IL III any wise involve matter in
Which me state has Il pccuniary in
terest; the parties IN interest heln.
complainant on the one side and tho
travelling public on the other side.
therefore the questions presented
are not such as TO warrant the as.
shinrlion that this court is without
jurisdiction ana n careful study of
inc circumstances attending the adon.
''oh OF tho eleventh amendment. MS
Wei rs the end to be obtained l,y
me adoption of the state. show con
ciuslVely that those who were re-
sponsihlo for its adoption never
dreamed that it could he used ms n
means OF deriving an American citl.
zen OF substantial right conferred
Nnon MIN by the constitution of tho
United States.
ne eleventh amendment being n
part OF the constitution must be con.
s,rued SO MS to give fun force ami
erect to every provision of tho in
strument OF which it forms n part
Any other construction of this amend.
n,eit would practically nulify that
cause OF the constitution which pro.
woes that no state shall pass nnv
laws impairing the obligation of con.
tracts as well as the fourteenth
amendment -"
ine opinion shows that the laws OF
North Carolina. especially nroyido
upon what terms an Injunction shaIl
ne granted to suspend rates. pending
iltigation or involving the confiscn.
Tory nature Of such rates: thai tho
statutes OF North Carolina expressly