The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-07-26
COMMENTS ON THE RATE LAW
(ConmunicateO

/ Quoth Governor Glenn says H.
Down with Pritchard, He has EN-
! Joined the rate law before he decided
it to be constitutional. He sends for
evidence TO get facts which must sc.-
tie il one way or the other. He should
have got the facts first. He should
have said 10 the railroad: Obey tde
law till you establish the fact that
it confiscated your property. He
should have waited till the final hear
ing On tie merits and then enioined,
IL the evidence showed the act TO De
co~nflscatory."
What a lovely law this would De,
The complainant alleges that his prop
erty Is being co~nfiscated. The defend
and denies II. The court ann know
which side is right till the proofs are
in. Suppose the court refuse injunc-
ton, the case goes on; at the final
hearing by the ultimate court 1t IS
held that the act is void. What abort
the wrong that has been lone the rail-
road pending the litigation in the
months and years during which they
have been working under the cut rae.
under a void law? How are they to
get their money back? They cannot
sue the state nor the railroad commits
sion, nor the state solicitor nor the
judges. Does the governor think
they can get indemnity by bringing a
few hundred thousand suits against
men and women and babies who may
have ridden over the roads while The
litigation was pending? On the other
hand. if the defendants, that is, the
people, prevail at the final hearing.
they are not hurt; they are indenni-
fed. The road has given a bond and
issued certificates SO that everybody
that vas charged too much could get
it back.
Wherever a plaintiff makes by his
complaint a prima facie case and it,
appears that TO deny him an injunction
on his giving indemnity bonds. TO The
defendant, might result in irrepara-
Bile wrong, the injunction is granted.
Why should not Governor Glenn
write TO the judges calling their Al
tentlOn to ViOlatOrS Of law and ask
ing them TO charge the grand jury and
requesting prosecuting solicitors to in
vestigate? This is no interference
by the executive with the Judiciary de-
partment. No judge would be fool
enough to get mad about it. There is
in it just as much propriety as there
would be in the act of a Judge recon-
mending a pardon to the governor.
This the judges frequently do as they
ought to. Only a fool of Il governor
would kick up about it.
Suppose the governor is informed
that a community is infested with
barn burners. Is there any harm. in
hiC WRITING ohnr+ - 70 +bo ;,,l~-- ,-l
solicitors urging judicial action for the
enforcement Of the law?
Judge Long did precisely right.
His action would have been supreme
II he had left out talking about him
self and mOuthing about his duty.
lie declined to be mOnkeyed with by
d~e1endantS who were openly and sys-
tematlcally violating the law. who re-
fused to set up a meritoriOus defense
claiming all the time hat they had
one who were simply seeking DELAY.
Who knowing that conviction was COM
ing, had decided to take their chances
on a habeas corpus after, rather than
before conviction.
Ii Asheville dispatches are correct
fTlIcnarQ S conduct in n%ullifying a
state law because he thinks the pen
alt1es are 90 severe is a
which the big court at Washington
Will ~repudiate. Suppose a state judcp
should Set aside a law because he
thought it hit somebody too hard,
what would North Carolinians do with
him? Pritchard had the right to is
u the main injunction as he did.
III there was anybody natural or cor
porate to ~enjoin) and he might right
~ prohibit persons from bringing civ
IL suits for penalties until the hearing
Of The case on the meritS-provided
he put notice and process on such PER
sons and gave them their "dav in
court and provided he required
the railroad to indemnify them by
proper bonds. But language is not
equal to a proper characterization of
the conduct of a judge who a~udaciouslv
VetOes an act Of the assembly becaus.
ne thinks the punishment fixed for
the commission OF crimes are too Sc
we're.