Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-07-30
Ut the Authorities Of State OF
North Carolina in South
ern Railway Case.
PARTIES REACH AGREEMENT,
Judge Says II Is Unjust TO Say That
Question of State Rights In
volved in Controversy.

Asheyille N. c., July IA pdrtiHB
shot at the state authorities IN the
railroad controversy was fred through
petitions which the Southern raltwey
and the Atlantic Coast line flied before
Judge Pritchard today, asking that ms
,nterocutory injunction be modified
in accordance with the peace agree
ment reached Saturday at haleisn pc
tween Gov. Glenn and tie railroaus'
Both the roads filed petitions very sum
liar In tenor. which explained con-
ference here today between attorneys
representing the two roads. The peti-
zion of the Southern railway reeites
the entire history of the railroad cases,
md includes a protest against "hae
tlie roads regard as their III treat
mrnt, th,s protest ana 1e''tnl - ii,ts
being designed for the perusal OF tIe
supr.u .drt of tre Uhiteu States' as
,v,,i ne "a. Re eperJsu OF the public
The railroads dscla T., In eject. that
they were dubbed into becoming par
~ 10 the AL cement eli vel ~ ithlriSl
The public mind had been unnamed ny
the rcwsiaYets and the utterAnces OF
noiiticians and the az. ,-inent WAS ohly
assented to- IL Is asserted. under dur
ess. because of threats Of an extra ses-
son Of the legislature. Won the eNpec-
tation was held out that worse thinss
would happen 10 the 'oads' Inc Soutu-
ern Railway company, says the pei
tion was confronted with question
as To whether a proper sense of IT'S
duty to the peace and good oruer OF
the state proper consideration OF JUS
obligations TO perform lis nulies ~ a
common carrier In the state ana inter
state business, and It's obligation iiot
TO SUBJECT it's employees 10 harassins
ment would justify it Ia claiming us
constitutional rights 10 the prot.ctlon
of the interlocutory order authorizing
1t to continue until the hearing on inc
existing rate of passenger charges OF
whether IL was not best to cease the
unequal conflict with tne uiiitSu pN"S''
of the state ,,.,
The Southern does not lose sight.
continues the petition, of the momen-
tous nature OF the claim asserted py
the state. II this state claim can pc
sustained. 1t is pointed out, 1t means
that through the agency of its GRIMM
al laws. a state can take the use OF
property without compensation for the
time between the enactment OF q stat
ute by its general assembly ana tiie
final determination of its constitution
aljty. II this claim of the state be up
hold state could fixe the rate at
cent. and If the company were COM
pelled TO observe this low rate. not
withstanding the fourteenth amend
ment forbids It, the state has the DOW.
err 10 take during the period mentioned
the property of company without
compensa lion with reference TO the
"coercion" and intimidation EN-
nloveT 10 s-'-.a 49, -'-H--- rom tho
courts mentioned spe.lni
mention is made of the activity of Gov
Glenn against the roads. In fact the
statement is made that the governor
81.
The request to make changes indi-
Gated in the petition was granted by
Judge Pritchard, who, In making the
revised order, made a lengthy stater
ment saving that the applications
now made to modify the in1unctons
heretofore granted In these causes
present condition of affairs UMPIRE
cedented in the judicial annals of this
country"
1.-The effect of the order restrain
irg the corporation commission of
North Carolina ct al" said Judge
Pritchard, was to preserve the rights
OF the parties until the master 10
whom the cause had been referred,
could have time to report the tacts
and thereby enable the court to cor
rectly determine whether the net In
question is confiscatory. In order to
protect the travelling public the COM
plainants were required to give am
pie bond and security to secure the
payment into the registers OF the
court a sum sufficient to pay the diff
ference fetween the present rate ana
the proposed rate to those who might
In the meantime purchase tickets. The
defendants could have appealed, but
they failed TO do so. Instead Of APP
pealIng In these cases they filed an
answer and the causes We're then and
there referred to n master In order
that the evidence might be taken.
ut is unjust 10 say that the ques-
ton of states rights is involved In
this controversy It is equally un-
lust to insist that what the court
has done In the premises was an In
reference on the part OF the fed
eral court with the state courts. How
ever. on the other hand, there has
been a manifest disposition on the
part OF the state officials to interfere
with the federal court in it's proce-
dure to do equal Justice between the
compliments and the defendants, and
In the exercise of the powers neces~
sarily incident to the protection of its
jurisdiction. If this kind Of obstruc-
ton should prevail and citizens are
thus to be denied the rights guaran-
teed them by the Constitution Of the
United States. then those provisions
OF the Constitution would become a
1zrr------------------