The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-03-24
TUESDAY, MARCH "a, 1905.
NORTH CAROLINA RATE DECISION.

NORTH CAROLINA RATE DECISION.
By a decision handed down yester-
dav the United States Supreme Court
has again reatfirmed the right of all
citizens to assert and maintain by
judicial process the privileges, rights
and protection guaranteed by the
United States Constitution. Few points
in constitutional law are more tangled
and obscure than those which touch
suits against States. and the rights Of
Legislatures to fix railroad rates. And
both of these points were involved in
the cases which have just been de-
clded.
In order to make this matter clearer
1t is worth while rehearsing some
pretty well forgotten history. In CHS
holm against Georgia It was held I'M
1853 that citizen of South Carolina
could sue the State Of Georgia. This
decision threw Georgia into a fury,
and that State at once passed a law
making it death penalty for any ore
to try to enforce the rights granted by
the Federal court.
Thereupon the eleventh amendment
was passed which provided that no.
suit could be commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States in the
Federal courts by a citizen of another
State, or by citizens, or the subjects,
OF any foreign state. Shortly after
Il,
of United States, Chief Justice Marshall
decided that in order for this amend
ment TO be effective the state must
be named as a party to the suit. It
sci for the British bondholders felt
satisfied that an injunction against At
torney General Ayres could not be con-
sidered as an injunction against the
state of Virginia. To the vast surprise
of the bondholders, however. the United
States Supreme Court followed another
line OF decisions when the coupon case
came I'M for trial, and held that a suit
against the States officials was suit
against the State, and as such was pro-
lIlbittd. lNtINlIS Oh llllS ODlIlloIl,
Carolina went to work, and by criminal
statutes of general character practi-
cally denied the railroads operating
in that State the right to try by Fed
eral courts the question of the reason
ableness of the rates put in force by
the Legislature.
A railroad ticket agent, who sold
tickets at higher price than that
provided by law was arrested and
sent to this rock.spile. He appealed
to the Federal courts on writ of
habeas corpus. and it was on the is
sue so raised that the United States
Supreme Court has just passed. From
the excerpts of the Supreme Court
opinion which have SO far come to
hand, it seems plain that the majority
of the court considered the laws passed
by North Carolina as practical denia,
of the rights guaranteed under the
United States Constitution, In that the
enormous penalties deprive the rail.
roads OF the equal protection of The
laws, and the court also held thai
the railroads had the constitutions
right to insist upon judicial hear
ing before the rates alleged to b,
confiscatory were enforced.
So holding, the court sustained TIL
injunctions issued by the Circuit Fed
eral Judges.
In his dissenting opinion Justice Har
Ian says: Neither the words nor tn
policy of the eleventh amendment will
under our former decisions, justify an
order of Federal court the necessar
effect of which will be to exclude
State from it's own courts"
The dissenting opinion, in view {
the situation that had arisen in Mir
nesota and North Carolina, and ais
In view of the long line of decision
on the reasonableness Of rates de
clared by State Legislatures, Is hardl
reconcilable with the recent decision
OF the Supreme Court. But the me,
fact that the United States Supren
Court is in existence at all. with IL
right and powers TO hear and d.
termine such profoundly important al
K far-rsaching questions, shows viii
extraordinary political powers are e.
ercised by that body. and what
check it is on ill-consIdered leglsli
ton, which otherwise would have ,
restraint save the bitter experience
It's own folly.
==---.===--------=
TO MAKE CITIES auIETEn.
The Society for the Suppression