The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-08-27
SOUTHERN WINS.
Judge Pritchard UphoIds Jurisdiction
of His Own Court.

Asheville, N. c.. Aug 27-Tud1a
Pritchard, in the United States circnf+
court, in a long expected opinion an
nounced today in the rate case of the
Southern railway against the corpora-
ton commission and the attorney
general of North Carolina, upheld the
jurisdiction of his court in the is
against officials during the railroad
rate controversy and declares that the
suit is not one against the state within
the meaning of the eleventh amend
ment to the federal constitution.
That amendment holds the judicial
power of the United States shall not ex-
tend to any suit against a state bv
citizens of another state. The de-
cision says that a state legislature can
not so frame an act as to deprive a
citizen of right vouchsafed him by
the federal court.
1t does not possess the power ito
deprive this court of it's Jurisdiction,
and the sooner these questions are
definitely determined the better it will
be for all parties concerned"
The decision holds that the cor
poration 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
"a cents per mile. The corporation
commission and the attorney general
ARE specially charged with the duty
of securing the enforcement of sec
ton 4. of the passenger rate act.
which provides heavy penalties and
fines for a failure of the railroads and
their officials to comply with that act
All laws in existence on the passage
of that act bearing on supervision
and control of railroads. etc, are to be
construed in connection with the rate
act.
''It is inconceivable." the decision
says, that a circuit court of the
United States in the exercise of its
jurisdiction should be powerless to
afford a remedy to one who seeks to
assert right which is guaranteed by
the constitution of the United States.
This is in no sense a suit against the
state, nor can it be successfully con-
tended that the state is in anywise a
party in interest in so far as the merits
of the controversy are concerned. 1t
cannot be reasonably insisted that this
is suit to prevent the state from en-
forcing any right which it possesses
nor can it be said to be a suit to COM
pei the performance of an obligation
of the state, nor does 1t in anywise
involve a matter in which the state
has 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 adoption |
of the eleventh amendment as we'll as |
the end to be obtained by the adop-
ton of the same, show conclusively |
that those who were responsible for |
its adoption, never dreamed that it |
could be used as means of depriving |
an American citizen of a substantial |
right conferred upon him by the con- |
stitution of the United States The |
eleventh amendment, being a part of |
the constitution, must be construed so |
as to give full force and effect to |
every provision 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 fourteenth 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 conhsca- |
tory nature of such rates; that the |
statutes Of North Carolina expressly /
authorize the course pursued by the |
courts when the freight rates are in
volved, but does not even require a
bond for such injunction when pas
senger fares are in litigation