The Mena weekly star., 1907-08-29
H[ CLAIMS JURISDICTION
Judge Priichard Hands Down His Long Expected Opinion in North
 Carolina Rate Case.
UPHELD BY TIE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
The Judge Declares the Legislature Does Not Possess the Power to Deprive Citizen of Rights Con. ferred by the constitution--Not Suit Against the State.

Asheville, N. C., Aug. 2S--Judge Pritchard In the United States cir. cult court, in a long expected opinion announced Tuesday in the rate case of the Southern railway against the coporation commission and the at. torney general of North Carolina, up- holds the Jurisdiction of his court in the issuance of the recent injunc. tions against officials during the rail- road rate controversy end declares that the suit is not one against tho state within the meaning of the 11th amendment to the federal coastitu tion. That amendment holds the ju- dicial power of the United States shall not extend to any suit against a state by citizefs of another state. The decision says that state legis. lature cannot so frame an act as to deprive a citizen of a right vouch- safed him by the federal constitution. It does not possess the power ito deprive this court of it's Jurisdiction and the sooner these ques tions are determined the better 1t will be for all parties concerned"
 The decision holds that the corpor. atlon commissioners are still charged with making rates the only limitation upon their power beins that they shall not make maximum rate in North Carolina in excess of 2A cents per mile. The corporation commis- rs1 tlx< specially charged with the duty of securing the enforcement of section of the passenger rate act, which provides heavy penalties and fines for failure of railroads and their off, ciaIs to comply with that act"
 All laws in existence oD the pas sage of the act bearing on supervi- sion and control of railroads, etc, are to be construed in connection with the rate act
 ''lt is inconceivable," the decision says, that a circuit court of tho United States in the exercise of itn jurisdiction should be powerIoss to afford remedy 10 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 it be successfully con tended that the state is in any wise party in interest insofar as the merits of the controversy are con cerned. 1t cannot be reasonably in sisted that this is a suit to prevent hn Ct, wfnhf which it possesses, nor can 1t be said to be suit to compel the perform ance Of an obligation of the state. nor does it in any wise involve matter in which the state has a pecuniary interest; the parties in interest being complainant on the one side and the travelling public on the other.
 Therefore the questions presented are not such as to warrant the as- sumption that this court is without Jurisdiction and a careful study of the circumstances attending the adop- ton of the l1th amendment as well as the end to be obtained by the adoption of the same, show conclu- sivefy that those who were responsi- ble for its adoption never dreamed that 1t could be used as a means of depriving an American citizen of partial right conferred upon him by the constitution of the United States. The 1lth 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 it forms 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 we'll as the l4th amendment"
 The opinion shows that the laws of North Carolina, especially provide upon what terms an injunction shall be granted to suspened rates, pending litigation or involving the confisca- tory nature of such rates; that the statutes of North Carolina expressly authorize the course pursued by the courts when freight rates are in- volved, but does not even require bond for such injunction when pas senger fares are in litigation.