The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1922-05-15
CRITICISING THE COURT.
The Newberry Observer inquiries

The Newberry Observer inquiries:
"Not criticising the court; but
didn't Judge Smith trench some
what upon the functions of
jury when he decided the Foster
rates in the telephone case are
Excessive and confscatory?"
Judge Smith certainly did not
trench on the functions of the jury
in the case referred to. In the first
place the case is in equity and is not
triable by jury at all. In the second
place, we take it, the Observer is
either not acquainted with the status
of the case, or is not informed as to
the rules of pleading. The complaint
in the case, in nutshell, alleges that
the rates complained of are conisca-
tory. The defendants have not yet
answered the complaint, and it must
be taken as true in all its allegations
until it is denied, certainly at this
stage of the case. Instead of answer
ing, the defendants demurred, which
means in plain English that for the
purpose of their motion they admit
all the allegations of the complaint,
including the allegation that the rates
are confscatory, but claimed that
Notwithstanding the action could not
be maintained. Judge Smith did not
decide that the rates are confscatory.
The defendant admitted this by de-
murring.
Judge Smith merely held that upon
the face of pleadings the action could
be maintained, but he gave the de-
PENDANTS thirty days in which to
answer the complaint, and to put in
issue any or all the allegations there
of. When this is done the case will
be. tried on it's merits. The court will
then determine as a matter of fact
whether the rates are confiscatory.
This statement of the status of the
case will, we believe satisfy the OBJ
server and others that the case is
proceeding along proper lines, and
that Judge Smith made not only a
legal, but a sensible order in the
case. We imagine that if the case had
been brought before the Observer
and the other side had admitted that
the rates were confiscatory, so good
a newspaper as the Observer would
have held as did Judge Smith. If the
legislature had passed an Act prov;d-
ing that the Observer and Press and
Banner should carry state or county
advertising at five cents per inch, and
if it had been mandatory under the
Act that such advertisement be car
ried at this rate, we, of the newspa-
per fraternity, would have thought
that we had very poor courts if we
could not have relief from such leg
islation. We do not say that the rates
of the telephone companies are not
too high, but when a litigant for the
purpose of motion, admits that the
rates are confscatory, the courts
would be impotent to dispense JUS
tice if the rates could not be en-
joined.
We regret to see so good news
paper as the Observer, newspaper
noted for the soundness of it's edito-
rial writings and the conservatism of
its speech, making such criticism of
the courts, because criticism it is,
whether so intended or not. The
courts are the only bulwarks of lib
erty in this country. If you succeed
in undermining the confidence of
the people in the courts, as will be
done by such criticism, every thing
is bedlam.
AS we said above we express no
opinion as to the question of fact
about whether telephone rates are
too high or too low. But it is little
strange to US that when the state had
a tribunal with power to collect facts
and make reasonable rates for tele-
phones, railroads and other public
carriers, the legislature itself under
took, under circumstances where it
could not make judicial and fair in
vestigation, to fix rates for a public