The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1908-03-27

Washington, March .3--ln refusing
=, grant TO Attorney General Young.
of Minnesota. a writ OF habeas cor
nus releasing him from the penalty
imposed by the United States district
court for the district of Minnesota ON
the charge of contempt OF court in
nstituting n proceeding in a state
court for the enforcement OF the rail
road rate law after the federal court
had prohibited such n course. and In
Affirming the decision OF Judge Prit-
chard in the United States cirssit
court for the western district Of
North Carolina, discharging from i'm
p-isonment James II. Wood. Q ticket
agent Of the Southern Railway az
Asheville. after he had been sgntcns-
ed by the Asheville police court Co
serve a term on the ock pile on the
charge OF collecting for n tiCka on
that road a greater price than was
permitted by the state railroad law.
the supreme court OF the United
States today added another TO the
series OF decisions which have rend-
cred notable the present term OF that
court. In both cases the right Of the
states to fix rates for railroad trans-
portation was the issue II both ~
volved conflicts between the federal
and the state courts. The decision In
each case was opposed both 10 ths
states and TO their courts. The opiu-
ion OF the court in both cases, was
announced by Justice PeckhRUI aud
with the exception OF Justice HARLAN.
all the other members of the curt
s.ood behind him in the Announce
ment OF the courts finding. Justice
Harlan read n dissenting opinion In
the Young case in which he TOOK the
view that the suit was practically a
proceeding against the state and
therefore not permissible under the
eleventh amendment to the constitu-
ton. He therefore characterized ths
opinion as era-making in the history
Of the court, said 1t had the efeot of
closing the courts Of a state against
the state itself, and predicted that the
result would be disastrous.
The two cases were 50 similar thai
both practically were decided In one
opinion. The pronouncement was
made in the Minnesota case.
Justice Peckham's opinion as out
lined is in part as follows:
The laws providing rates for trans
p%ortation Of passengers and freight IN
the two cases under consideration
have been held by the courts below
to be so low as to be substantially
ccnfscatory, and should therefore not
be enforced until after further trials.
The courts had jurisdiction to make
such an order.
Such laws are therefore held IA
constitutional as they prevented tho
companies from resorting TO In
courts and therefore deprived them
of the equal protection OF the laws
The question of the sufficiency OF
the rates to enable the company b
obtain ONE return to its stockhold-
ers for their investment, has for
many years been held 10 be one for
the courts to decide. as 1t would be-
a violation Of the constitution OF the
United States to fix rates so low as
to be c~onfiscatory IL enforced.
The North Carolina case, that OF
Sheriff Hunter, OF Buncombe county
vs.. Agent Wood of the Southern
Railway, attracted much attention
during the greater part OF last sum
mer, and was for a time the cause OF
very sharp conflict between the
courts of the United States and those
of North Carolina. Wood was ind!ct-
NO, IOullu guilty anu S'Hlt4''h ~
serve a term of thirty days o. the
rOck-pile at Asheyille on the charge
of selling railroad tickets for moro
than the maximum rate established
by the statutes. He appealed 10 Judge
Fritchard, sitting in the United states
circuit court for the western dis-
trict of North Carolina, n the at
ter promptly issued a writ OF habeas
rOrnIlG nrdarin0 IUnnd'g ralaAEa hy
Sheriff Hunter.
This action of the court was the
elimination of several important
steps in the controversy beginning
with the issuance OF injunctions by
Judge Pritchard against the state
prohibiting the carrying of the rate
law into effect. This p~roceediuz was
followed by an address by Governor
Glenn to the superior courts Of he
state, questioning Pritchard'S author
ity and asking them to see that ~
dictments were found against o.
agents Of the railroad company. In
accordance with this address a mum
Der OF arrests were made, SO thai
Woods case became a ties. case FOR
Eiany others.
So important did Judge Pritchard
consider the action Of the state au-
thorities that he said IN his opinion:
III the criminal prosecutions aGainst
the agents, conductors, and employees
arc permitted to continue, The maIa-
gers OF the railroads cannot success
fully operate their railways, carry
the mails or continue their useful
ness as common carriers doing an
Interstate business.
Considering the North Carolina
case to have been disposed OF by the
action Of the court In the Minnesota
case, Justice Peckham did NOT Ella
borate his views in the former pro-
ceeding. He says:
Being detained in custody by viz
tue OF this conviction by one OF the
police courts OF the state, he had the
right to apply for a writ Of habeas
corpus to the limited States circuit