The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1907-09-04
JUDGE PRrTCHARD FILES OPIN-
ION IN NORTH CAROLINA
RATE CASE.


Agninst the State-CI. .ticiscs the
Legislature.
Asheville. Aug. 27.--Judge Pritch-
ard. In the United states circuit court,
I'm the long expected opinion. an
nouncsd In the rate case Of the South
ern Railway against the corporation
commission and attoreny general OF
North Carolina. upholds the jurisdic-
tion OF his court In the issuance of
the recent INDUCTION against the off,
cials. during the railroad rate contro-
verv and declares that the suit is
not ono against the state. within the
meaning Of the nth amendment to
the federal constitution.
That amendment hold that the ju-
dfclal power Of the United States shall
not extend to any suit against a
state by citizens OF another state.
The decision says that tbs state leg
IAaturs cannot 80 frame an act as to
deprive . citizen OF the right vouch-
safsd him by the federal constitution
and II does not possess power to
deprive this court of Its jurisdiction
and the sooner these questions are
dsfspiteiy 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 limita-
tion upon their power being that they
shah. not make a ma*imum rate in
North Carolina In excess OF IA
cents per mile. The corporation
commIssson and attoreny general are
specially charged" with the duty of
securing the enforcement Of section 4
Of the PASSENGER rate act. which pro-
vides heavy penalties and fines for
the failure OF railroads and their ofii- :
ciais 90 comply with this act
7 An laws In existence on passage OF
that act. bearing ON the supervision
and control OF railroads. ETC.. are to
.be Construed in connection with rate
act.
re n inconceivable." the decision
says. 'that the circuit court Of the
United states In the exercise of It's
jurisdiction should be powerless to
AFFORD remedy to one who seeks
TO assert ! right guaranteed by the
eonstitution OF the United states. This
10 Ia no sense suit against the
state. nor can It be successfully con-
tended that the State Is In any wise
a party In interest. In $50 far as the
merits OF the eontro. .ersy are con-
cerned. H :
j 1T Cannot be reasonably insisted
that thts Is suit to prevent the
state from enforcing any right which
would be a suit to compel the per-
fcrmance OF obligation OF the State nor
does IL In any wise involve matter
in which the State has pecuniary
interests-the parties in interest
being the complainant on one side
and the travelling public on the
other. lrs
Therefore the questions present.
ed are not such as to warrant the
assumpticr that the court Is with
out the Jurisdiction and careful study
or the circumstances attending the
ADOPTION OF the 11th amendment as
well as the end 10 be obtained by
the adoption OF the same. show. con-
siusiyely that those who were res
ponsiole forts adoption never dream
ed that II could be used as a means
OF depriving an American citizen of
substantial right conferred upon
him by the constitution OF the Uni
ted States.
THE nth amendment being a part
Of the constitution II must be constru-
ed so as to give full force and effect
to every provision OF the instrument
OF which IL forms part. Any other
conservation Of this amendment would
practically nuilIfy that clause ,of the
constitution which provides that no
state shall pass laws impairlng the
obligations OF contracts as we'll as the
18th amendment"
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 involving the conrsca-
tory nature OF such rates-that sta
tntes Of North Carolina expressly
authorized the course pursued BY the
courts when the freight rates were
involved but does not even require
bond for such injunction when
passenger fares are In litigation.
How's This?