The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-08-06
THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE.

! THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE.
/. An act vas passed b. the Legs
lature Of North Carolina providing
that no railroad should
I charge, demand or receive for trans
porting any passenger a rate IN eX-
cess Of : Ii cents per mile.
2. The act declared that any rail-
road violating any or the
provisions Of the act should be liable
to a penalty Of $500 for each ~vialation,
payable TO the person aggrleFed.
8. When this act was passed there
was no case in the Federal court al
fecting the matter and the Leglsla-
ture had before it the sworn report Of
/ the officers Of the Southern Ra lWay,
made to the Corporation Commission.
4. The Southern Railway brought
suit against the Corporation Commits
sioners and the attorney general ask
ing that these State officers and all
other persons be restrained from
publishing the rate established by the
law or putting the same in operation.
5. A temporary injunction was
ranted. based upon the eX parte
statement of the railroad-and to Sc
cure this it was necessary to deny the
accuracy of the sworn report of the
railroad to the Corporation Commis-
sion.
6. The defendants appeared spec
4E4lI IL wv NiANiN 49, 'NA'
missed upon the ground that the suit
was one against the state and prohIb-
tied by the Const tuition of the Uni
ted States.
7. The plaintiff railway alleged that
The number of actions for penalties to
which it would be exposed under the
act of the Legislature and which will
| be Instituted against it, will be enOr-
! nous, and il VIII be very difficult if
not practically impossible to show in
defense of each Of said actions what
the effect on plaintiffs revenues would
be Of the proposed reduction in pas
senger rates; it would be seriously
and unjustly burdensome and eXpen-
sive to the plaintiff to be subject to
the great multiplicity Of suits and
prosecution for penalties.
8. The act of the Legislature makes
any agent. servant or employee of any
railroad company violating this act
guilty of a m~isderneanor.
9. A warrant for Wood and Wilson,
ticket agent of the Southern Rail-
way, was issued by the police justice
of Asheville for violating the provi-
sions Of the act. indictments against
the Southern Railway and other
agents of the road were found by d.f-
ferent grand juries.
10. The plaintiffs allege that these
warrants and Indictments were
w~rongfully found against both the
I3ltfOil company ana us agents, be-
cause the passenger rate which the
have charged is only the rate which
has heretofore been fixed by the com
p2ny and approved by the Corpora
ton Commission, and authorized by
the Federal court. They further con-
tend mat the Federal court having
taken jurisdiction of the rate question
that therefore these warrants and IN
~dlctrnentS are in violation of the au-
thority of the Federal court and of
It's orders, and in violation of its con-
stitutional rights and privilege under
the Constitution of the United States.
II. 1t was alleged that Wood and
Wilson had been arrested and tried
before the police justice and SEN
fenced to a term of imprisonment at
hard labor for violating the provi-
sions of the act, and were then in
the custody of the sheriff. It was
further alleged that these criminal
proceedings We're in contempt of the
order OF the court and in violation
Of the Injunction which the court had
entered.
II. The plaintiffs asked that the
act be declared confiscatory and re-
pugnant to the constitution of the
United States.
13. At this stage of the proceeding
the plaintiffs continued to insist that
the state officers and everybody else
be enjo.ned.
- mere mas as yet been no in
junction issued gains any solicitor
to restrain him from in~stituting or
prosecuting any ind ctnlent or Grim
lnal proceeding against any for vio-
lating of said alleged demonstrations
al act-except as the solicitor comes
under the general term of amy one
Is. A writ Of habeas corpus was is
sued for Wood and Wilson,: the act
was declared unconstitutional. and
both prisoners discharged, and the
complaining witness ordered to show
cause why he should not be attached
for contempt of court.
16. The final decree in the case has
not yet been rendered; the court held
that 1t was necessary to take evidence
to ascertain whether or not the ACT
was IN fact confiscatory and anpoint-
ed q master in chancery to a the
testimony. The finding of the court
IN the habeas corpu proceedings that
the act was unconstitutional. after de-
c1dlng that it was necessary to appoint
a master 10 take evidence, is a
straw from which the final decree
may be guessed.
Judge Pritchard's Judgment.
In the opinion Judge Pritchard
bases his decision on the ground:
% That the ticket agents were
protected by the injunction granted by
MS court last month staying the eve
cution Of the new rate law until SO
clal master Montgomery reports. That
until the law is construed by the
courts the agents have a legal right
protected by his i~njunction) to Sell
tickets at the old rate.
20 Because the penalty clause of
the new rate law is unconst:tutional
IN that it is so excessive as to be con-
nscatorN or 10 prevent roads from
eontesting it in the courts.