The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1907-08-01

10 the PeOpie OF the State:-Since
MIR. Finley, president OF the South
ern Railway, has seen fit to publish
the railroad side OF the unfortunate
now going on between
the State and certain railroads, the
Council OF State and the States at
torneys deem it best that as COVER
nor l also give to the public the facts,
in order thatit may see whether it is
the State or the railroads that are
trying "to hamper or interfere with
the orderly course OF judicial pro-
cedure."
The General Assembly at it's last
session upon the reports made by
the various railroads to the Corpora
tion Commission, based on their re-
ceipts and disbursements, passed an
act regulating passenger rates, and
fixed the maximum charge at ~
cents. The act was self-executing;
nothing had to be done by the Cor
poratiOn Commission or the Attor-
ney General to give it force, but by
the express wording OF the statute it
was to 60 into effect July 1st, 1907.
Before that day arrived the Southern
Railway and the stockholders of the
Atlantic Coast Line applied to Cir
cult court of the United States to en-.
join the Corporation Commission c and
Attorney General from putting said
rate into effect. This application on
the part OF the Southern Railway
was based on entirely a different re.
port of earnings than the sworn one
given to the Corporation Commits.
sion, it's officers contending that a
great mistake had been made in the
first report in that it made the intra-
state net earnings too large.
All those who have studied the
question will see that if the act went
into effect July 1st, 1907, without
the Intervention of the Corporation
Commission, Or Attorney General,
then when Judge Pritchard enjoined
the Commission and the Attorney
General he acquired Jurisdiction over
the persons and not the subject mat
ter, and his decree was a vain thing.
He was powerless to enjoin the gov
ernor, the judges and other State
officers, because the Constitution oi
the United States forbids it. They
will all agree that the State courts
had Jurisdiction of the subject matter
whether constitutional or unconsti-
tutional.
The Corporation Commission ap.
peared before the Circuit court. Ger
tain private persons bringing penalty
suits under the act were also cited
to appear; the matter was argued
and without finding that the act was
unconstitutional by reason OF being
unsatisfactory, the court continued
the injunction and ordered the taking
of testimony to find out whether the
rate was too low, and therefore
amounted to eonfiscation OF rail-
road property. Did the State officials
act Sin an orderly manner" on the
rendition OF this decree, even though
they deemed it erroneous? They &C.
quiesced, filed exceptions and pro-
ceeded to get ready to take testi.
mony. By letter and otherwise,
advised all private litigants that ]
could, to respect the order made by
the court, and would not even em.
ploy the same attorneys in the in.
dictments that had been employed by
the Corporation Commission.
The rate law, as before stated, be-
ing self-acting, requiring nothing to
be done by the Corporation Commits
sion or Attorney General, became q
law July LIST, and was every day
being violated by the railroads and
their agents. Some of the judges, o.
their own motion, seeing the Law
thus openly violated, knowing tha,
under the decision Of both the State
and Federal courts, the Circuit court
could not enjoin or prevent the oper
alton OF this law by enjoining the
Corporation Commission, proceeded
to properly charge the grand jury
and have bills of indictment found
against the railroads thus violating
the criminal law OF the State. Re
member that Gin an orderly course
all State officials who were restrained
by the Circuit court obeyed it's decree
Let us see in what an orderly man
ner the railroads acted. We will take
the indictments in Raleigh and
Asheville. In Raleigh a bill wal
found against the ticket agent o
the Southern Railway, and the South
ern Railway when brought into
court, both the agent and officials o
the railroad refused to recognize tht
State court, would not plead, but
stood mute, and the court itself had
to enter the plea of mot guilty
When its agent was put into custody
the railroad advised him to go t.
Jail, which he did, until released from
custody by the Judge. They put or
no evidence and after a verdict o
guilty as to both defendants, they
would not appeal, which was TIN
"orderly course" but tried to- get 1t.
agent to go to Jail, so a writ o
habeas corpus could be obtainet
from the Federal court, and nov
threaten to enjoin the collection o
the fine imposed against the railroad
not by appeal, but through tina
court.
In Asheville, the defendants woult
not recognize the court or give bail
when convicted would not appeal
but went into custody, awaiting
Judge Pritchard's return from Raj
eigh, and applied to him for q wri
OF habeas corpus. Acting in an or
derly manner, the sheriff did not dis
obey the writ, but carried his prison
ers before Judge Pritchard, whel
counsel for the State argued th
States contentious, and the Circui