The Oskaloosa herald., 1907-08-29
CONSTITUTION AS
| RATE CASE BASIS
JUDGE PRlTcHARD UPHoLps THE
i POWER OF FEDERAL COURT.
CAROLINA CASE RULING
Jurlst Declares at AsheviIIe That Any
State Laws Which Would Limit
/ His Powers Are
4. Void.


Pritchard in the United States circuit
court, in long-expected opinion in
the rate case of the Southern railway
against the corporation commission
and the attorney general of North
Carolina, upholds the jurisdiction of
his court in the issuance Of the recent
injunctions against officials during the
railroad-rate controversy and declares
that the suit is not one against the
state within the meaning of the elev-
enth amendment to the federal consti-
tuition. That amendment holds the
judicial power of the United States
shall not extend to any suit against
state by citizens of another state.
States CanNot Take Rights.
The decision says that a state leg
islature cannot so frame an act as to
deprive citizen Of right vouchsafed
him by the federal constitution 1t
does not possess the power ito de-
prive this court of its jurisdiction and
the sooner those questions are defin-
itely determined the better it will be
for all parties concerned"
Commission Has Rate Power.
The decision holds that the cor
poration commission is still charged
with making rates, the only limitation
upon the power of the members be-
ing that they shall not make a maxi
mum rate in North Carolina in excess
of two and one-quarter cents per mile.
The corporation commission and the
attorney general are specially charged
with the duty of securing the enforce
ment of section of the passenger
rate act. which provides heavy penal
ties and fines for failure of railroads
and their officials to comply with that
act"
All laws In existence on the passage
of that act bearing on supervision and
control of railroads. ETC.. are to be
construed in connection with rate act.
i Courts Can Afford Remedy.
i "It is inconceivable," the decision
says, that a circuit court of the
United States in the exercise of its
jurisdiction should be powerless to
AFFORD a remedy to one who seeks to
assert a right which is guaranteed by
the constitution of the United States.
This is In no sense a suit against the
state, nor can II be successfully con-
tended that the state Is In any wise
party In interest in so far as the
merits Of the controversy are con-
cerned 1t cannot be reasonably in
sisted that this is suit to prevent
the state from enforcing any right
which 1t possesses, nor can 1t be said
to be a suit to compel the perform
ance of an obligation Of the state, nor
does 1t in any wise involve matter in
which the state has a pecuniary In
terest; the parties in interest being
the complainant on the one side and
the trayeling public on the other.
Assumption Not Warranted.
Therefore, the questions presented
are not such as to warrant the as
sumption that this court is without
Jurisdiction, and careful study of the
circumstances attending the adoption
OF the eleventh amendment, as we'll as
the end to be obtained, by the adop-
tion of the same. show conclusively
that those who were responsible for
dts adoption never dreamed that 1t
could be used as a means Of depriving
an American citizen of a substantial
right conferred upon him by the con-
stitution Of the United States. The
eleventh amendment being part of
the constitution must be construed so
as to give full force and effect to
every provision of the instrument of
which 1t forms a part Any other
construction of this amendment would
practically nullify that clause OF the
constitution which provides that no
state shall pass any laws impairing
the obligations of contracts as well as
the fourteenth amendment"