Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1907-09-03
SOUTHERN ROAD wins
IN RATE Law ruling
JUDGE PRlTcHARD HANDS DOWN
IMPORTANT DECISION IN THE
CAROLINA CASE.
UPHoLDs POWER OF
THE FEDERAL COURT
Declares That a State Legislature
Cannot Deprive Citizen Of His
Rights Nor United States Court
of Its Jurisdiction.


Asheville, N. c., Aug. 2s.-Judge
Pritchard in the United States circuit
court, in long-expected opinion in
the rate case of the Southern railway
against the corporation commission
and the attorney general OF North
Carolina, upholds the jurisdiction OF
his court in the issuance of the recent
in5unctions against officials during the
railroad-rate controversy and declares
that the suit is not one against the
4 state within the meaning of the elev-
enth amendment to the federal consti-
tuition. That amendment holds the
! judicial power of the United States
shall not extend to any suit against
state by citizens of another state.
States Cannot Take Rights.
The decision says that a state leg
| islature cannot so frame an act as to
1 deprive citizen of a right vouchsafed
him by the federal constitution. It
does not possess the power ito de-
4 prive this court of it's jurisdiction and
the sooner those questions are dein.
itely determined the better it will be
for all parties concerned"
Commission Has Rate Power.
The decision holds that the cor
poration commission is still charged
with making rates, the only limitation
upon the power of the members be-
ing that they shall not make maxi
mum rate in North Carolina Ia excess
Of two and one-auarter cents per mile,
The corporation commission and the
attorney general are specially charged
with the duty of securing the enforce,
ment of section of the passenger
rate act, which provides heavy penal
ties and fines for a failure OF railroads
act"
All laws in existence on the passage
of that act bearing on supervision and
control of railroads, ETC., are to be
j construed in connection with the rate
act.
4 Courts Can Afford Remedy.
ut is inconceivable," the decision
says, "that a circuit court OF the
| United States in the 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 in so far as the
merits of the controversy are con
cerned 1t 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 suit to compel the perform.
ance of an obligation Of the state, nor
does it. in any wise involve matter in
which the state has pecuniary In
terest; the parties in interest being
the complainant on the one side anG
the travelling public on the other.
Assumption Not Warranted.
Therefore, the questions presented
are not such as to warrant the as
sumption that this court is without
Jurisdiction, and careful study OF the
circumstances attending the adoptios
of the eleventh amendment, as well as
the end to be obtained, by the adop
tton of the same, show conclusively
that those who were responsible fol
ats adoption never dreamed that i
could be used as means Of depriyint
an American citizen of substantial
right conferred upon him by the con
stttution Of the United States. Ths
eleventh amendment being part O
the constitution must be construed 81
, as to give full force and effect t.
every provision Of the instrument O
which it forms part. Any othel
, construction of this amendment would
practically nullify that clause OF tbt
constitution which provides that nj
state shall pass any laws impairine
the obligations of contracts as well as
the fourteenth amendment