The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-07-23
Full Text Of Judge Prchnds Opinion in the North Carolina
Rate Case Which Penalty Clause of New Law Set NaAgh

is Set at Naught|
Circuit, courts of the United States
Wou COLTS ns Wod by uabd
q Any I QUESTION INVOLVING the validity
OF thp statute Of state Legislature.
the petitioner Is entitled to be dis
charged for the reasons hereinbeforc
s sboss ~ neIerthelesg there anothe
shoil. consider III order that there
may be a proper determination. Of the
saste In contrnyersy and In the con.
ity Of Section 1 Of the act In in ques-
ION ~, which reads as follows
Ihat any railroad company violat-
ing any provision OF this act shall be
liable to penalty Of five hundred dol
lars for each violation. payable to the
pers sr sg E; BY such violation ana
any court Of thIs HIS state 81 sui having Pntso Conn
petent jurisdiction thereof. and any
rond company violating this act shall
be guilty of misdcrlennor and upon |
conviction. shall be fined or imprison-
ed, or both, In the discretion Of the
court"
The foregoing section among other
things provides that the company or
is agents shall pay penalty OF I'VE
comply with the requirements O Of I tho
act 1t has been held that no State
can constitutionally close the doors
Of the courts to q judicial Inquiry into
the constitutionality Of the rates 1t
fixes.
IN the case Of Railroad Company vs.,
Minnesota, 1s4 United States, 456, 1t
was held by the supreme, Court of
was conclusive, and there could be no
inquiry into such rates by judicial
tribnnals Accepting this construction
g ,e ta act " ths snp o
Of the United States declared the net
UNCONSTITUTIONAL because 1t denied the
railroad companva judicial investlga-
this cannot be accomplished directly, II
cannot be done Indirectly. It Is well
settled that what cannot be done BY
system OF penalties which Is intended
to have the effect and which Is so
frames as to have the effect, of closing
Inc rafes IN 20
Of that fact. unconstitutional, and void.
Section of the. act IN question clear
Nv attempts to do this.
It imposes upon the company. as n
appeal to the. court. no matter how
bona hde this bill is made. such enor,
|indlvduals as to burden the challenger
Of the ace In the courts. so as to make
| 1t. II the penalties were valid. practi-
cally impossible for such TN appeal to
In the case of Getting vs.. Kansas
Stock Yards Company. 1873 y. S., 100,
Mi Hnstfe Wh9 h hs
phase Of the question, said: TT may be
said that this Is a penal statute. and
therefore Il Is to be construed In favor
a right to expect that The State courts
Will construe che penalty as not at
taching to the charge for. each head OF
arate punches shipped by different in
dividuals. But is the language. so clear
that there is no doubt as to the con-
4 to Justify construction which may
i proved By the Supreme Court Of the
Statute b BY the he supreme 1 Court Of tho
State is, in aScase like this, conclusive
Upon us.
liability is threatened take the chances
J of the construction of q doubtful stat
3 ute? II, the one construction is placed
upon it, then obviously, even 81 accept
ing the largest stimate Of value placed
by any witness upon the property OF
the company, a single days violation
of the statute would exhaust such
entire value satisfseti9a the pf fhe
case we IRE brought face to face with
J la question which legislation Of other
! States is presenting. Do the laws
! lection when he is allowed to come
, Into court and make his claim or de-
!. Ifense, subject to the condition that
I upon failure toemake good that claim,
J or defense the penalty for such fall
lure either anpropriates all Of his prop
erty or subjects him to extraya 81 =
and unreasonable loss? Let US MAKE
I'll s. ssspe
J, Should Should bring or defend an action and
} fan in his claim or defense either IN
|. instance, forfeit to the defendant half
: Of the amount Of his claim and. in the
!, other be punished by a fine equal 70
!, half OF the recovery AGAINST nm an hn :,
( to iaboring men. would there be the
: slightest hesitation in holding that the
: tlaborera was denied the equal protection
The mere fact that the courts arc
open to hear his claim, or defense Is
Y not SUFFICIENT II upon him end upon
t him alone there is visited substan ,
t t tai penalty for failure TO make ,nl good
e Ma entire claim or defense Take an.
!, other OH Illustration. Suppose statute
every fai;ing to toes estf fbe
eIlish Its entire Clulln OF 1iidhc Spou ~
t antira defense should, as penalty
forfeit tS IF as Knd ex
= cept the matter Of costs was va. atta en-,
ike failures Of other ro itga9tp sore
u, ne 1,,e anal protection Of the laws;
FAKE FAKE still s another illYstration s4 y;
v pose a law which. while opening NJ 9, ~. y
y doors OF the courts to all lltlgants
npot i that a failure Of any plaintiff
4 or defendant to make good his en,lre
claim or entire defense should sub1ec
him to a forfeiture Of all his prop'ert!
or or, to some other great penalty; then
even 1t. as all litigants. were treatet
K alike. it could be said that there wa
equal protection Of the laws, Woult
. not such burden upon all be adjudgeet
denial of due process Of i, law? ;, q
course. those are extreme illustrations IS
and they serve only to Illustrate N
lproposition that a statute (although, y
terms openn1g the doors Of Mbia ns q paee
|upon him as penalty for a failure 4
make 5000 his ela II or ai1fenye n 9nf
dat hin, from asserting that Whicl