The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-28
Judge Pritchard Renders
 Decision. HOLDS THAT SUIT IS
 NOT AGAINST STATE Legislature Cannot Deprive Citizens
 of Their Rights. eopinion Also shows That Laws d North Carolina Provide Upon What Terms InJuctiens Shall Be
 Granted to Suspend

Asheville, N. C.. Aug. 27--Judxs Fruchard fin the United States Court. rendered long expected opinion in the rate case of the Southern Railway against the Corporations Commission and the Attorney General of North Car Toiina. upholds the Jurisdiction of tho court in the issuance of the recent in- functions against officials during the railroad rate controversy, and declares that the suit is not one against the state within the meaning Of the E1ev.. tuition.
 That amendment holds the judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any suit against a State by citizens of another State. The decfs- Ion says that state Legislature can- not so frame an Act as to deprive cit- izen Of 8 right vouchsafed by the Fod- erad Constitution. It does not pos- sess the power to deprive this court of It's Jurisdiction and the sooner dues- tions are definitely determined, the bet- ter 1t will be for all parties concerned. The decision holds that the Corporatipn Commission are stiil charged with making rates. the only limitation upon their power being that they shall not
 make maximum rate in North Caro- iina In excess of I-4 cents per mfIe
 The Corporation Commission and tho Attorney General are especially rharg- cd with the duty of securing the en- forcement of Section { Of the passen- ger rate Act. which provided heavy penalties and fines for failure Of railroads and their officials fn comply with that Act" All laws lf exlnt- ence on the passage of that Act being etc. are to be construed in connection with the rate Act
 It is fnconcefvsble," thn decision sayss that Circuit Court oK fhe Unit ed states In the exercise of it's 1ursaz df1tion should be powcriess to afford remedy to one who seeks to nseert a yight which Is guaranteed by tha constitution of the United States Tbts is in no sense a suit .gafust the State. nor can 1t be contended that ha State is fin any wise a party in inter- est. insofar as the merits of the con t-oversy are concerned. It can not be reasonably insisted that this is a suit to prevent the State from enforc- ing any right which it possesses. nor can 1t be said to be suit to compel the performance of an obligation of the State nor does 1t in any wise invoke a matter in which the state has q pecu- niary interest; the parties in interest being compliments on the one aid0 and the travelling public on the other.
 Therefore, the questions preeeuted are not Sucn 6B LO WhFrAnE the &H@ sumption that this court is without jurisdiction and a careful study of the circumstances attending the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, as well as the end to be obtained by the adoption of the same, show conc1usiveIy that those who were responsible for It's adop- ton never dreamed that it could De used as a means of depriving an Amer ican citizen of a substantial right con- ferred upon him by the constitution of the United States. The Eleventh Amendment being a part of the Con- stitution, must be construed so as te give full force and effect to every pRos vision of the instrument Of which if forms a part. Any other eopstructioN of this amendment would practically nullify that clause of the Comstftution which provides that no State shall pass any laws impairing the obligations of contracts as we'll as the Fourteenth Amendment"
 The opinion shows that the laws os North Carolina especially provide upon what terms an injunction shall b@ granted to suspend rates, pending litt- gation involving the condscatory na- ture of such rates; that the statutes of North Carolina expressly authorize the course pursued by the courts when freight rates are involved. but does not sven require q bond for such injunct- ion when passenger fares are in iitt. gation.