The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-07-30
LAWS WITH TOO MANY TEETH.

From the New York Times OF the
23rd we take the following editorial,
: which, we think, will be interesting to
our readers just at this time:
Judge Pritchard has discharged the
agents of the Southern railway who
were sentenced to the chain gang for
violation Of the North Carolina rail-
way rate law. The judges decision
declared the law unconstitutional n
void because Of it's severity. The peual-
ties would amount, he says, to $780,
600 a day if the law were enforced, or
eight times the amount of the file
levied upon the railway for breaking
the law. Moreover, procedure under
the aW violates the comfy Which
should exist between state and federal
courts. Judge Pritchard passed no
criticisms and impugned %nObOdy's
motives, but remarked that the course
taken had the effect Of defeating the
jurisdiction Of the Uuited States court.
This ends, it may be supposed. tie
happy prospect of another irrepress;ble
conflict, unless Gov. Glenn proposes
state officials in the execution OF an
unconstitutional statute. The governor
held that the North Carolina law was
prima facie valid. The federal court
rules that it is void on it's face for a
familiar reason-that enactment of
! cruel and unusual punishment, ana de-
privatiOn of property without due pro-
; cess of law, are forbidden even to the
ill-informed lawmakers who deem
themselves little czars. Too many
! American dumas have fancied That it
was theirs to bind and loose. We have
no personal Car to dissolve the assem-
blies incapable even of putting their
wishes into legal form, but capable OF
causing panic and ruin if they had
their way. Our safety does not lie in
a Car determined to dissolve Legis-
latures until he gets one to respect
the rights of property. Our safeguard
: against economic anarchy lies in a
written surrender of state rights to
enact anything contrary to principles
ratified by the people themselves. 1t
is the people Of the United States,
not Judge Pritchard, who forbid North
Carolina to act contrary to what the
Constitution authorizes.
/ Judge Pritchard has even enjOined
the bringing of suits contrary to bis
opinion, and this has been remarked
! upon as ~forbidding access to the
| courts, regardless of the merits. The
remarkable thing is not that the
Judge should have done so, but that
! he should nave been put under the
compulsiOn of doing so by legislators
! capable of such an excess Of unwis-
dom as is embodied in the statute.
! For the railways are just as much en-
: +itlol fn thair 6ay in HO1Irf &C an "
. body else, and the attempt to fore
close them of their rights by enact
ing such a ferociOus statute is an
open conflict with decisions by the
Federal court. in the Kansas City
Stockyards case Justice Brewer said:
1T is doubtless true that the State
may impose penalties such as Will
tend to compel obedience to its la
dates = & = but when the LeCiSla-
ture, in an effort to prevent any in
. quiry of the validity Of a particular
statute. so burdens any challenge
thereof in the courts that the party
is necessarily constrained to submit
rather than take the chances
of the penalties imposed, then it be-
comes a serious question whether the
party is not deprived of the equal pro-
lection Of the laws"
1t is this principle which led to the
adverse decision of the Master in the
Consolidated Gas case, and it seems
applicable as we'll to. the statute under
which Standard Oil is awaiting a pos
sible s29. GOO, 900 fine.
Who is to blame for the disrepute
into which law is falling in the United
, States? Is it the law makers who en-
act statutes which in President R0osa-
velts words are Incapable Of full Ell
forcement because both judges and
juries realize that full enforcement
would destroy the business of the
country? Or are they rather to blame
who, against their will, are compelled
to break such laws Il remain solvent?
The Sherman anti trust law is the