The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-08-20
THE SOUTHERN'S SURRENDER

The following is from the editorial
columns of the New York Journal OF
Commerce of last Saturday. They are
the views of one of the leading papers
of the country, published at a distance
from the locality and having no inter-
est whatever in the controversy. The
Jou<ual says:
The Southern Railway Company
has followed its compromise IN North
Carolina with another in Alabama,
whereby it agrees to abide by he
state law pending the judicial test of
its validity in h United States
courts. This it has done as a mat
ter OF expediency n virtually I'M
der coercion. Judge Humphrey OF
Louisville, speaking for the railroad
says that 1T acted from a
sense of duty to the public. In JUS
tice to it's patrons it could not afford
to enter into interminable litigation,
which would put rho patrons
OF the Dad to trouble ana embar-
EASEMENT" Stopping business with
in the state could not be thought of
for the same reason" nc it was
from a patriotic desire to serve the
people Of the state. who We're pat
IONS of the road. that the policy of
conn .Omise had been adopted"
Tina is a nice way to put it for
the railroad, but possibly there was
an eye to the interest Of the COM
pany as a corporation. Perhaps it
wished t. SaVe itself from trouble
and embarrassment as we'll as its pa
irons But the fact IS that it acted
under virtual duress in both Of those
states because the authorities took
such an ~antagonistic position and
aroused such a hostile feeling in the
people that it was expedient from a
bu"ines1 point Of view to Weld
rather than resist. The loss 10 which
it would he subjected by submitting
to injustice would be much less than
that likely to be incurred by contend
ing for It's rights. Perhaps /. would
have been better if it had started
upon that lire and allowed the law
to AXE its course in the state courts
and thence to the federal court on
appeal. hut in that case there would
be no redress if it was proved in the
end that it was deprived of property
without due process of law. and it
was entirely within its right in apply
ing to the federal court for an i~njunc-
tion in the first place and the courts
acted within It's Jurisdiction in grant
ing it.
Inc compromise winch the stats
authorities have practically forced
upon the company does not put
them in the right. It is possible
that their rate laws NAV be upheld
and that the provision i'm Alabama
imposing a penalty for beginning a
suit in the federal court or having
one begun in a state court transfer
red to a federal court ma escape 8
lest, though it is 10 hoped that the
latter will o be the case. But if
the p had been in a position
TO insist upon its rights and had per-
sisted in RELYING upon he protection
Of the United States court. there can
be no doubt nat the jurisdiction of
that ribuna would have been main
tanned and upheld There was a.
question of constitutional right in
volved which made it obligatory up
on that court TO take jurisdiction and
to grant and to sustain the in
junction asked for if the evidence
presented in its judgment warrant
ed it. AS ito the company's right
TO bring suit n the United States
court in Alabama or to have a case