The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-12-10


conclusion and from that part of tbs
opinion upon which IL 5 based) Law
1907, Oh. 2i6 provides: Sec. N
railroad com pany doing business r. 1
common carrier of passengers in th'
State or North Carolina except a.
hereinafter provided, shall charge
demand OF receive Tor transporting
any passe niger and his or her baggage
not exceeding in weight zoo pounds
from any station on its railroad IL
North Carolina TO any other station
on its said road In North Carolina. :
rate in excess of . IA cents per mile
and for transporting children under
- years of age, one half OF the rate
Il above DC scribed -
Sec sAnd any agent
servant or employee of any railroad
company violating this act shall b'
guilty or a misdemeanor, and upor
conviction shall be fined or iInprison.
ed or 10th in the discretion Of the
court"
1t is elementary and hitherto un-
controverted law that any one who
commands and directs another TO com,
NIT a mfsdemeanor is himself guilty
of a misdemeanor He need not h
actually present at the time, but Il
he knowingly, Willfully and unlawful
ly commands and directs another e
violate the law, he himself is equally
guilty with that other
A printed order rom the passenger
deT Tartment of the defendant company
was put IN evidence without objection
wherein the agents were commanded
instructed and directed TO sell ticke ets
at the old rate, disregardin and ir
open violation of, the law of this State
above set forth. This orddr the de
fendant Green. agent of the defendant
railroad Obeyed instead of the Statute
This made him guilty of a violation OF
law. He was found guilty and has
not appealed. 1t also made the de-
fendant railroad guilty. because f
commanded, ordered and directed the
So id agent to violate the law. The
brief of the defendant railroad filet
in this case admits that it issued tC
the defendant Green and other agents
the order TO sell tickets at a rate in
excess Of that allowd by above
statute
It IS now universally conceded thai
corporation can commit a crime
just as an individual can. There have
been too many indictm ents agains
corporations sustained in this court
as for issuing free passes, running
trains on Sundays and a hundred 9th
er acts. necessarily done through It's
agents, for this to be a debatable
question 1t has always been law
founded upon reason. that he who
aids in the commission Of or procures
another to commit crime is also guilty
and this is as true when a corporation
procures the commission of crime
a s when It is an individual that pro
cures it to be done. If the act is q
misdemeanor, both are guilty Of the
same misdemeanor and can be indicted
together.
If one man commands another tC
strike a third person and his com
mo nd tod !, ,t-S-ia iy1i1 Try
results the person who gave the com
mand may be indicted alone or
Jointly, for the battery, and this
though the first party may be liable
also for actual and punitive damages
II any other person or corporation
than the defendant railroad procured
or induC &c the defendant Green tc
violate this law. or any other law 4
Will not be denied that such person OF
corporation would be indictable with
Green. Upon what principle is it tina
this railroad is exempt from punish
ment for the indentical act which
would be criminal if committed by
any other corporation or individual ir
the state? Our laws are not thus
wont to discriminate. The defendant
railroad IS the more guilty, and moi
guiltless, because 1t had more and
greater powers Of persuasion 70 cause
It's agents to violate the laws of theil
cause it could co-erce. It had its hand
upon the livelihood of its agents. i
boldly defied the act of the legsla
ture and commanded It's agents to dis
regard and violate it openly. daily
and hourly. Can it be heard to say
that it is not guilty Of the violation
of law which it has commanded and
forced its agents to commit? Is there
one Iay. for the defendant railroad
which exc mpts it from liability, wher
1t cOmDels so many men to com nit
crime, and another which subject:
those very men to liability for the act
and would subject any one else wilt
would advise or procure them tc
break the law?
It is inconceiva BILE that the legisla-
ture of this State should make such
as exemption in favor of the defendant
company from the settled law of the
ages that he how procures or causes
another to commit a crime is himself
guilty If the legislature intended tc
so order. it would surely have made
its intension clear and beyond dispute
4 has not written a line into this
law to indicate such intention It is
incOnceivable that the General Assem-
bly, of North Carolina should wish tC
punish the agents and conductors, its
own citizens. criminally for an act
from which they would receive nc
profit and should at the same time
withdraw from any liability to the
criminal law the great and powerful
corporation which compeIs them tC
commit the crime and which receives
the sole profits therefrou1-profic-
which. in fact, it is contending viii
be very great.
1t has not only always been human
law that he who causes another tC
commit crime is equally as guilty as
ne who does the act but il is the di-
vine decree in the first recorded Judge
ment The serpent receivd no part o1
the fruit. il did not compel Eve 10 eat
but because 1t suggested and encour-
aged the violation of the law. II re
ceived tn heavier sentence. Here the
railroad both compelled the act TO be
done and received all the profits o1
the crime Adam did not procure
the violation Of the law, but only re-
ceived part of the fruit. Yet was ht
also punished.
1t is tue that the rate is establish