Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1907-08-29
Judge Pritchard Hands Down q
Decision in north Carolina
Rate Case.
nc UpHOLDs HIS own ACT.
Right Conferred BY Constitution Can
Not Be Taken Away BY Act Of
LcuisIature-- State Not .
Party.

Pritchard in the United States cir.
cult court, in a long expected opinion
announced Tuesday in the rate case
Of the Southern railway against the
cooperation commission and the at
torney general of North Carolina, up
holds the Jurisdiction of his court
in the issuance of the recent injunc-
lions against officials during the rail-
road rate controversy and declares
that the suit is not one against the
state within the meaning OF. the 18th
amendment to the federal constitu-
ton. That amendment holds the ju-
dicial power of the United States
shall not extend to any suit against
a state by citizens Of another state.
The decision says that state legis-
lature cannot SO frame an act as to
deprive citizen of right vouch-
safed him by the federal constitution.
1t does not possess the power TO
deprive this court of Its Jurisdiction
and the sooner these questions are
determined the better It viii be for
all parties concerned"
The decision holds that the corpor-
alton commissioners are still charged
with making rates the only limitation
upon their power being that they
shall not make a maximum rate In
North Carolina in excess Of IN cents
per mile. The corporation commits.
sion and the attorney general are
specially charged with the duty OF
securing the enforcement of section
4 of the passenger rate act, which
provides heavy penalties and fines for
a failure of railroads and their Off
cials to comply with that act"
All laws in existence Cd the pas
sage Of the act bearing on supervi-
sion and control Of railroads, etc, are
to be construed in connection with
the rate act.
at is inconceivable," the decision
says, that circuit court Of the
United States in tie exercise of its
Jurisdiction should be powerless to
afford remedy to one who seeks to
assert right which is guaranteed by
the constitution of the United States.
This is in no sense suit against the
state nor can it be successfully con-
tended that the state is in any wise
a party In interest insofar as the
merits of the controversy are con-
cerned. It. cannot be reasonably in.
sisted that this is a suit to prevent
the state from enforcing any right
which it possesses, nor can 1t be said
to be a suit to compel the perform
ance Of an obligation of the state, nor
does it in any wise involve a matter
in which the state has a pecuniary
interest; the parties in interest being
complainant on the one side and the
travelling public on the other.
"Therefore the questions presented
are not such as to warrant the as
sumption that this court is without
jurisdiction and a careful study OF
the circumstances attending the adop-
ton of the 18th amendment as well
as the end to be obtained by the
adoption of the same, show conclu-
siyefy that those who were RESPONSE
BILE for its adoption never dreamed
that 1t could be used as a means OF
depriving an American citizen OF a
partial right conferred upon him by
the constitution of the United States.
The 18th amendment being a part OF
the constitution, must be construed
50 as to give full force and effect to
every sprovision of the instrument OF
which 1t forms a part, Any other
construction OF this amendment
would practically nullify that clause
of the constitution which provides
that no state shall pass any laws
impairing the obligations Of contracts
as well as the 14th amendment"
The opinion shows that the laws
of North Carolina, especially provide
upon what terms an injunction shall
be granted to suspened rates, pending
litigation or involving the confisca'
tory nature Of such rates; that the
statutes of North Carolina expressly
authorize the course pursued by the
courts when freight rates are In
volved, but does not even require 9
bond for such Injunction when pas
1890. foras arc IN LITIGATION.