Newspapers / The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, … / Sept. 12, 1907, edition 1 / Page 10
Part of The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
. ;:aii: liquation !io:n I'uge Three.) to Gttei nilne the whole con- ;..,Jthe action of Judge Pritchard u unprecedented, as claimed, or v.! .nary to the approved p.aciice of ,,e courts, there was a. simple rem-fv-y to wjich the defendants might :uvo resorted tor reitrens. me vw J slice of the United States Is, un der the rulci of the Supreme Court, assigned as a circuit Judge to this fou.th Judicial circuit There are nine of these circuits in the United States. Each of the nine Supreme Court Judges is assigned to one of themv 'I his is done by virtue of the statute of the United States so requiring It. The Chief Justice can preside at hia pleasure over any court In .thU circuit, or hear matters In chambers, as a cir cuit judge. The defendants could have moved before the Chief Justice on a few days notice, to the other - side, to vacate the order of Injunction as having been improvidently granted . -There is recent precedent for such a course. It will be recalled that a few years ago, the United States district Judge for the eastern district of this State, in a suit In equity before him, appointed receivers for the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad Com- ; pauy, the controlling rc It of vhloh the State owned. The counsel for the railroad and 4he State immediately moved before the Chief Justice to strike out the order appointing the '- receivers in the case, because the court was without Juriedilotion to have Is - eued it. He entertained and granted tha motion. It was all accomplished in avery few days. A similar motion In the case could have been made be fore the Chief Justice as to the or ders of Judge Pritchard In the rail road suits. If his orders were unau thorised and "unprecedented, the Chief Justice would have vacated them: If they were made In a proper exercise of Judicial discretion, he would have refused to trike them out. There waa danger In this course. If the Chief " Justice had approved Judge Prltch- ard'a course, It would .have been an assurance to the public of the proprie ty of his order: If he had not. the sub- ' Ject would have been dropped from the public mind. ' In either event, there would have been no opportunity for . grand-stand play aa defenders of State sovereignty - li the limelight of public agitation. PART II. SUITS IX THE SUPERIOR COURT. The rate bill provided that It should take effect on the 1st day of July, 107. The ord,er of injunction in the Circuit Court was signed on the 29th day of June. It enjoined the corpora tion commission and Attorney General ' from putting the statutory, rates Into effect i Later, on July 6th, on the fil ing of a supplemental bill by the Southern Railway, the Federal Court further enjoined certain individuals, who had Instituted penalty suits asalnst the Southern Railway lnee ' the first Injunction, and made them parties to the original suit. It further enjoined all other persons. Individuals : and corporations, from instituting or further prosecuting any suit, or other proceedings, civil or criminal, agrfinat the complainant, for the recovery of any penalty or punishment under the C eald act, or under any Ihw of North Carolina because of failure of wild complainant or its employes to put In- to effect the freight or paMffpnuer rates provided, for in the legislative act. Atihe'opentng of the Superior Court of Wake county, at Raleigh, N. C, on Monday, July 8th, His Honor Benja- ' mln F. Long. Judge presiding, charged the grand Jury In effect, that the pen alty clause of the rate bill was a erlm- , Jnal 'statute of the State; its enforce ment could not be enjoined by the lower Federal courts until declared unconstitutional; and they should pre- -.. ae.nt any railroad or Its agents selling tickets at more than the two and a Ouarter cent rate provided In the act. The grand Jury, on July 16th, indicted the Southern Railway and Its ticket agent, Mr. T. E. Green, for violations , of the act. Th Indictments were re turned ten days after the wupplemen tal bill of complaint of the Southern Railway and the further order of the Federal Court, enjoining prosecutions, ' Civil or criminal, were tiled In the clerk's ofW at Ra!tpri. The indl-ed partiex were put on trial the next ay and convicted. The counsel for the Southern appeared for defendants. It was Insisted Hint the court should not -rorrpl with the trial, because the fora! Court's Ju risdiction had f. rtt atti hed and the de- fendants by ordrr "f th it court hid been permitted to fell tickets at the existing rates. The r -needlngs In the Federal Court were filed with the Su- TMrfnr Court s the hHi of a pie to , Its Jurisdiction. The presiding Judge .overruled the plea, and held the act . to be contsltutional on It fare. The parties were convicted snd tlie :. court Imposed fines upon the South ern Railwav of J30.000 ana upon the ticket agent of t5. NEWSPAPER COMMENTS. The progress of the trial of the case wan reported In the newspapers, with all the sensationalism that muM be made to accompany it. The Governor addressed an open letter to the Su- perlor Court Judges of the State, call ing upon .them to charge the granil ' Juries In the State, notwithstanding th Federal Court's Injunction, to !n- did the railroad and their employe for violations of the penaliv clause. . Th New and Observer, in Its iswue of Juily d, declared: , -"Judge PritChaid's Injunction 1r not ' worth the paper it i written on, ir every man charged more than tw o and quarter cents for a. ticket brines suit ,aaint the North Carolina Kallroad j The Supreme Court of the United and the Western North Carolina Rail- j I States, us late ns 1903, has decided ,"roa.d, A State law demand greater! In the Uter case of Prout va. Starr reverence than Bn unauthorized Fed-! (188 U. 8., 537), quoting Its own lan eral Injunction." igusge. that: "The Jurisdiction of the A-nre conservative .paper or the Ctate declare 1 - "Thl great State or North Carolina, ,fcelr to more ,than thre-e centuries of honorable past; and thriving toward a fplendtd future, has been treated with ' disdain by a Federal Judge, at the In stance of certain chronically malcon tent railroad companies." It waa announced by the prees that III Honor Judge Pritchard, the Unlt- 2L! J., 'l . way rom Ashevllle to Raleigh, to Is - u a writ of habeas corpus. Edlto- ' rlally. The New and Observer, the ap parent organ in this matter of the Governor, aaid: "Will a Federal Court Judge uttempt , to coerce a Judge of the Superior Court of North Carolina.to prevent the ' mforcetnnt of the criminal law of thi State? The question will be an swered to-day. in all frobabHity. Will the State of North Carolina get down n Its knee In the presence of tht - Federal Judge, who is expected to stay proceeding In the State court, con trary o th xpre provlMona of the " law of the United States, which place positive limitations upon the power of the Federal Judiciary?- ; ,. . STATE- READY TO RESIST. , " Later, under the headline.' "Let tht fcswe Be Met,", it called upon the food people o Wake county to resist, witft t tv, tlw attempt it made. The Gov - wmor ha trie annmned iitthe-pass) ti-at the tension waa o great that ha would (hare ordered out th Stat C nard in defrost of the Bute oewrt'a po!tlon, if ttny e.Tort Jiad been made by Federal aulhority to take -the pris oners. Judge Pritchard did not dis close the pui po.se df hia visit to Ral eigh. No 'petition- of huoeaj! corpus was filed asking the release of the ticket agent. Green, and of course, no writ issuil. The Superior Court Judge, while in the progress of the case, took the prisoner within, his per sonal custpdy, to strengthen presum ably, the court's hold upon him, and to resist more effectually the .writ of habeas corpus. If one should be Issued. Li.ter, other indictments were found at this term of the Superior Court, the spirit of which finds illustration In the report of The News and Observer un der the headline: "Federal Jnjunc lions Don't Stop Wake County Ju ries." . At about the same time, other agents of the Southern were arrested by the police magistrate of the mu nicipal court of Ashevllle. On petition, the circuit Judge issued a writ of ha beas corpus, but before it could be served, the police magistrate discharg ed the prisoners. While Judge Pritch ard was at Raleigh, the police mag istrate re-arrested the same agents, tried, convicted and sentenced them to thirty days on the road. t This pro ceeding rather Illustrated the nursery rhyme: "When the cat la awuythe mice will play." Ot his return to Ashevllle, Judge Pritchard had the prisoners brought before him,; on a writ of habeas corpus, held the section of the rate bill containing the penalty clause to be unconstitutional, - in a well-prepared opinion, and discharged them. Later- still, Mr, Finley. - the president of the Southern 'Railway, was arrested by the Ashevllle police magistrate, and at once released by the Federal Court. There were other pleas entered In the case of the agent, Green, at Ral eigh, .before the Superior court, which are not pertinent to this dis cussion. One of these was that the act was confiscatory and In violation of the fourteenth amendment. . De fendants moved for a continuance. In order to offer evidence upon the fact that the rates prescribed toy the Leg islature were unremuneratlve and therefore confiscatory. Appeals were entered by the defendanta In the Green case, and by the State In the habeas corpus suit at Ashevllle. CONTENTIONS OF STATE. The contention of those who justi fy the course of the Superior Court Is that the penalty clause of the act la a criminal statute: the order of the Circuit Court of the United States did not enjoin, as a fact, the prosecuting officers and grand Juries of the State; If it had, the Federal Court did not i have oower in an equity case to re strain State officers in the prosecution of a criminal statute; the act on its face is constitutional, and, until declared unconstitutional by a court of competent Jurisdiction, the duty rests upon the Superior Courts of the State, regardless of the Federal Court's injunction to enforce the law. There is no doubt that the cane of Fit va. McOehee, which has been so often cited and discussed, lays down the general proposition that the officers of the State cannot be re- j strained from prosecuting violations of the criminal statutes. But every i general proposition has its limitations. It is not held in Fitz vs. McGehee. nor has it ever been held, that the Federal Court may not restrain crim inal prosecutions In the State courts, In aid of Uh own Jurisdiction, when that Jurisdiction had first attached. It will be ooierved by a careful analy sis of Fit vs. McGehee that the com plaint was originally brought to de clare void a statute of the Alabama Leglnlature of February 9th, 1905, and to restrain the Attorney General from Instituting or prosecuting any indictment or criminal proceeding against any one for violating the pro visions of the act. The act prescrib ed toll rates on a bridge operated by the receivers of a railroad, and made it a misdemeanor to charge a higher rate than that fixed by statute. Later. In the progress of the trial, the re ceivers, who were the complainants, filed a supplemental bill, In the same cause, alleging that other prosecuting officers of the State had Instituted prosecution against the toll-keepers, under an act of the State of Alabama of 1885 (Code 4151), which they did not allege to be unconstitutional, but did allege the prosecutions were wrongful an being in violation of the order appointing them receivers and of the court In restraining the- Attor ney General As to tne act of Febru ary th, 1895. FITZ-M'GEHEE CASE. Attain, the Alabama acts discussed In the case of Fitz vs. McGehee were rot a part of a scheme of freight reg ulation, but were Independent stat utes creating a misdemeanor and af fixing a punishment, being solely and Independently criminal statutes, whereas, the penalty clause of the North Carolina act Is a part of a! scheme of freight regulation, and In volved In the controversy presented In the Federal Court. In . Fitz vs. McGehee, the court said; 'There were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances In these cases to have Justified the Interference by the cir cuit court." In the North Carolina Railroad suits, the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court had attached to the aubJe-.-t matter for the purpose, (quoting the language of Justice Brewer), of making "a comprehensive decree coa- errilng the whole ground of the con- trove-ray. before the fctate suits were 'ht-sun. The subject matter of the cases presented In the Federal Court, whose Jurisdiction first attached, was the same subject matter presented In the state Superior Court, whose Juris. I diction, If any. attached subwiauentlv. Clrouit Court could not be defeated or Impaired by the institution y one of the parties, of subsequent proceed ings, whether civil or criminal, Involv ing the same, legal questions in the Ktate court." There I no escape from the force of the application of this decision, except upon the theory that the crim inal prosecution In the State Super ues to the suit".n the 'KdeWl oSK ior ouri was not by one of the par. There Is no question of the guilt of the defendants, If the act la consti tutional, but whether or not It Is constitutional I a question being In vestigated by a court of. competent Jurisdiction, and all proceedings brought subsequently In any nther court ought to have been stayed, pending the final termination of the Issue in the court that first took Jurl diction. If there was doubt of the Jurisdiction, the doubt should have been resolved by the court whose Jurisdiction was subsequently invoked, In favor of th court first raking Ju rtodlction, while the caae waa pending, and the Appellate Court allowed to determine it on appeal. HI Honor Judge Fred Moora took the proper ground. U appear to the writer when he charged the Jury at Wlnaton that, If they knew of. any violation of the law, n wa their duty to pree nt them to the court, but. if presentment were made, he would ntdtitif -thartlje-taaeg' -con. tinned until' the constitutionality of the act waa determined hv the Fader. i al Cavrtv which had concurrent Jurla- diction and the matter under advi.-.j-ment. DIGNITY. OF LAW. It is esen:Ul to the dignity of the administration of the law through the courts that unseemly conflicts be tween them should be avoided. In the Eneyclopeflia of Pleading and Practice, a work of high authority, In Volume 12, at Page 151, the author era tea the law aj follows: 'It Is a settled rule that when two courts have concurrent Jurisdiction over a particular sun Ject matter, the one which first takes cognizance of a cause falling thereunder will retain the Jurisdiction throughout, to the ex clusion of the other, and until final determination." Again, the same work, in Volume 22, Page 339, the author says: "Following the general rule that, as between court of co-ordinate Jurisdic tion, the -one which first obtains rijrht ful . Jurisdiction : over the" aub Ject matter of a controversy, must by all other courts be (permitted to proceed therein to final Judgment A Federal court having first acquired Jurisdiction and custody of property, will maintain and protect Its posses sion against interference by State pro cess, ana, on the other .hand, if the State court haa first acquired rightful possession of the res, the Federal Court will not interfere therewith.' v CO CRT'S WANT OF POWER, ft There ihas been much said in order to show the court'a want of power to laaue the Injunction in regard to Sec tion 120 of the Federal statutes, which reads; "The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court-of the United States to stay juoceedings in any court of the State, except In casea wnere auch injunctions may be au thorized by any law relating to -proceedings in bankruptcy." This section haa never been construed by the court to prevent injunctions being issued In aid of the court's own Jurisdiction. The law ia atated in t!ve case of the Mercantile Trust & Deposit Company vs. Railroad, in The Federal Reporter,; Vol. 109, at Page 6, In these words: "Repeated decisions havevflrmly es tablished the principle that, -where the Injunctive process of a Federal Court Is Invoked to enforce its own Judgment or protect Ita own Jurisdiction, Sec. 720 haa no application. French vs. Hay, 22 Wall, 250, and Dletzsch vs. Huide kopec, 103 U. S. 494. In Fl3k va. Rail road Co., 10 Blatchf.. 520: Fed eral Cas. No. 4. 8S0, Judge Blatchfordj diu. im provision oi eec. o oi ine act of March 2d. 1793, that a writ of Injunction 6'hall not be granted to atay proceedings In any court of a State, ihaa never been held to have, and can not properly be construed to have any application, except to -proceedings commenced In a State court before the proceedings are Cimimenced 4n the Federal Court; otherwise, after ault brought in a Federal Court, a party defendant could, by resorting to a suit In the State court, defeat In many ways the effective jurisdiction and ac tion of the Federal Court after it had obtained full Jurisdiction of person end subject matter. vMoreover, the provisions of the act of 1793, (now Sec. 720, Rev. SUt.) must be construed in connection with the provision of Sec. 14 of the act of September 14th, 1789, that the Federal courts shall have power to issue all writs which nvay be necessary for the ex ercise of their respective Jurisdic tions." Even as late as 1903, we find the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Julian vs. Central Trust Co. (193 U. S.. 112). eaying: AN UNSEEMLY CONFLICT. "In such cases where the Federal court acts In aid of its ow njurisdic tlon and to render its decree effectual, It may, notwithstanding Sec. 720 Rev. Stat., restrain all proceedings in the State court which would have the' ef fect of defeating or impairing ita Juris diction." It is not probable that either penal ty suits or criminal prosecutions would have been brought by individu als, after the injunction had been Is sued by the Federal Court, had it not Tacen for the urgency of the public press -and the Insistence of the Gov ernor upon the State Superior Courts Ignoring the Jurisdiction of the Fed eral Court and finding Indictments. It Is to be regretted, the author thinks, with due deference to his high charac ter and marked professional ability, that the presiding Judge of the Supe rior Court did not deem It his duty to continue prosecutions brought before him, until such time as the Federal Court, whose Jurisdiction had first at tached, might have determined the matter, and avoided the unseemly con flict which has developed In these North Carolina suits. Had the Superior Court obtained Ju risdiction of these cases before the Federal Court ,had acted, it would have been the plain duty or the Federal Court, out of comity , to the State courts, to have declined taking Juris diction. HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS. The power of the United Slates Circuit Court, under the circum stances, to have issued a writ of ha beas corpus and discharge the per sons Indicted in the State court for the violation of the 'penalty clause has been questioned. His Jurisdiction in these railroad suto first attached, tvnd he had Issued ihe Injunctions in the cates. before 'these prosecutions -had been commenced. His Injunction per mitted the Southern Railway to con tinue the old rate. and enjoined the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad from putting the new rate Into effect. The Supreme Court of the United States said, in the case of Kitz vs. McGehee, that: "Undoubtedly, the courts of the United States have the power, under existing legislation, by writ habeas corpus, to discharge from custody any person .held by State authorities under criminal proceedings Instituted under State enactments, If such enactment ar void for repugnancy to the con stitution, lawn, or treaties of the Unit ed States. But even in such case we have held that this power will not be exercised. In the first instance, except In extraordinary cases, and the party win be left to make ihla defense in the State court," Again, in the cas of Minnesota agalnstBrundage, the Supreme Court said: V "We have held, upon full considera tion, that although under existing statutes a Circuit Court of the United States has jurludictlon upon habea corpus to discharge from the custody of Sta.te officer or tribunals ona re strained of his liberty in violation of the constitution of the United State, It I not required In every case to exer cise Ita power to that extent immedi ately upon application being mude for the writ. We cannot suppose thl court has ald, 'thai Congress intend ed to compel those court, by auch mean, to draw to themselves, in the first instance, the control of all crim lnal prosecution commenced -in State court exercising authority within th aame territorial limit where the ac cuaed clalrrfa that he ta held In custo-. dy In violation of the constitution of the United State. The-injunction to hear the case aummarlly, and thereup on, Ho dispose of he party a law and Justice require' doea not deprive th court of discretion aa to the time and mode in "which It will exert the powers conferred upon It. Tht discretion ahould be exerclaed in the Mtfht of the rMfitohi uhder mif nyntenref fcrfvern ment between the Judicial tribunals of the Union and of th Atate. and in roeomlMon of h fact that th awhibi J good r' V;-.j,t those rt-tctths 3 I s j not CiMu. U-l ! y uonecctiry ct.nHt between couru njuully bound to guard and protect r:.;'iu secured by tne con stitution. When the petitioner is in custody of the State -authorities for an act done or, omitted in pursuance of the law of the United States, or of ai order, process or decree ot a court, yr Judge thereof; or .where, being a sub ject or citizen of a foreign State, and domiciled therein, he is in custody un der like authority for an act done or committed under alleged right, title, privilege, protection, authority or ex emption claimed under the commis sion, or order, or sanction of any for eign State, or under color thereof, the validity and effect whereof depend up on the law of nation; in such and like cases of urgency, involving, the author ity and operations or the general gov ernment, or the obligations of thl country to, or its relation with, for eign nations, the courts of the United State have frequently interposed by writs of habea corpus and discharged prisoner who were held in custody under State authority." The revised statutes of the United States (Sec. 753) provide: v i "The iwrlt of habeas corpua ahell In no caae extend to a prisoner in Jail, unless where he is in custody under or by color of ; the authority of the United State, or is committel for trial before some court thereof; or la in custody for an act done or committed In pursuance of 1 a law of the United States, or of an order, process, decree of a court or Judge thereof; or Is in custody in violation of the constitution or of a law or treaty of the United State " It ia clear, then, that by statute and the authority of the supreme Count of the United States, the Circuit Court have the, undoubted power, upon ha beas corpusTunder the circumstances, to .discharge from the custody, not only of State "officers, but of Stat trib unals, i one restrained of hia liberty; that it is not called iupon to exercise this power in -tft-e firsts instance, but. (whfre the case. Is urgent and when the petitioner is under arrest tor an act done or omitted to be done, by .n Judge thereof, the writ will be issued. The previou injunction having per mitted the railroads and their agents to aell ticket at the old rate, the ar rest and detehtlon of an agent of the railroads was In violation of the express order of a Judge of the Circuit Court, and he could be released upon habeas corpus. Hi Honor Judge Pritchard, in the ihabeas corpus cases, cited the authorities under which he acted, and adjudged that o much of the rate bill as related to the penalties imposed, wag In violation of the constitution of the United States, in that it imposed excessive penalties, that were Intended to prevent the railroads from exercis ing their right to contest the act, and was, therefore, equivalent to depriving them of the qual protection of the laws. It was held. In tie Reagan case, that the penalty clause Ini the act could be declared unconstitutional, aa In this case, while the remainder of the act might remain In full force and effect: nd whether the portion of the act that fixes the rate will be held un constitutional, aa in this case, while the remainder of the aot might remain in fua force and effect: and whether the (portion ofr the act that fixes the rate will be held unconstitutional is to be hereafter decided wihn the special master now taking the evidence shall have made his report to the court. PART HI. THE RATE LITIGATION. It ia a fair conclusion from the cit ed authorities of the highest court of the land that the Circuit Court Judge exercised no unusual power and made no unprecedented orders in these suits. It la possible he may be re versed by the Supreme Court of the United States. That great tribunal has reversed the decision of even the Supreme Court of thia and other States." The agitation which followed upon the Federal Courts' action is one thing that was unprecedented. The writer Is not an advocate of the free dom from criticism either of the courts or other publHT officials. There is a legitimate criticism, however, which has its limitations, and there Is an illegitimate criticism that runs to hysterja. The one is prompted by a desire to conserve the right; the other is prompted by the desie of making others, regardless of the right, come to the critics' "way of thinking." The railroads were denounced for bringing suit In the Federal Court; their act was described as a contempt of the State court, and a spitting upon State law. The act of the cir cuit Judge was arraigned as high handed, the grabbing of Jurisdiction to favor the railroads, an invasion of States' rights and a reflection upon State sovereignty. The agitation had for its avowed purpose the forcing of the-railroads to put into effect the legislative rates, pending any investi gation into the validity of the act. The popular indignation was aroused by making It appear that- the rail roads were defying the laws of the State. The threat by high State of ficials of more Indictments of rail road agents rapidly tended to .disor ganize the railroad systems of the State. Thi agitation was boldly championed by the Governor. It may be well to take some further account of it several phase. in its issue of July 14th, The New and Observer, published. at Raleigh, editorially said: NEWS AND OBSERVER'S VIEWS. "Judge Pritchard,' persuaded into a great error, la grasping at the straw of usurpation In the hope of reclaim ing a lost position., - "Having attempted to suspend .in act of the State without even the col or of finding It unconstitutional, he finds himself faced with the alterna tive of attempting to enforce an im potent decision or admitting himself to have been in the.wron;. - . - ""' "'-.a "-'' '- - "Judge Pritchard' Injunction, wrong in the first Instance because it hadi scarcely, the shadow of evidence to support it, was, so far as the act of the North Carolina Legislature was concerned, aa powerless a the house wife's broom against the sea." On July 16th the Governor-of the State, In a letter addressed to the State .Superior Court Judges, publish ed in The New and Observer, after callins; theXr attention to , certain clauses of the rate bill, had thl to say: .'.j . --v "The "act of the General Assembly required no action tin the part of the corporation commission for - Attorney General to give it vitality r to put it into effect- It waa aelf-acting. and on July 1st, 1907. became a law, and the decre of a circuit Judgt . of the United, State enjoining the corpora tion; commlast'jner and Attorney Gen eral could or did not prevent Its be coming a law. The law la therefore now In effect, and the - agents, servants and employes of the railroads, who, Inea the flm day of July , have charged, ' demanded and " received a greater rat than 2 1-4 cents per mile have violated the plain letter of the law and are liable to Indictment a well aa th higher official of the roads who advised and directed their agents o to act. 1 "The decree of 4ha Qtreult Court of fM "United Ftater-dtd hot pretend to enjoin the enforcement of the crimi nal violation of the rata lair, and I do oat bellev ajur iudara, after readinji te ..) or i v. i:; u. S. Imports, j.. ti 173, an 1 c i tere cit'-d will ever attempt to n.-sKe so h:g.t-r!andd on order, but will leave the criminal law to be e.iforced by trials, appeals, etc., "as provided by, the constitution both or the State and the United States. "As executive officer of the Stato It is made my duty to see that the criminal laws of the State are enforc ed. To do less Is to violate my oath. ThS law is being violated every day. I therefore ask you, as Judge of the Superior Court of the State, to proper ly Instruct th grand Jury, and to di rect the solicitor of your district to send bills against the agents and em ployes of the railroads or its hlghar official thus openly acting In defiance of law." '' INTERVIEW WITH GOVERNOR. In an Interview on July 27th, in the same paper Ip. large and bold type, -title Governor is reported to have said: . "Belng called up 5 at half past 11 o'oiock last night Governor Glenn, on being aaked if he knew whether or not the r Southern ' Railway omciais were on their way from Ashevtlle to Raleigh, presumably to see him, an swered: t'-" c :- ' " 'I have no information to that ef fect It Is needles tor them to see me unlets they are wlllingr as condi tion precedent to any negotiations, to Immediately put the 11-4 Cent rate Into effect, for the rate law must be recognized -before I will consider any adjustment, I have been diligently ex amining; the law to-aay and I am sat isfied that my position is correct, hence I c,an make no concesskm that annule the law.': '::--;f:,. "Governoir Glenn wa's then asked if h had riven the Question of an extra session of .the General Assembly' any thought during tha day. He repnea. t tti nw oolnion an extra ses sion, as soon as it could be - called, would easily settle the wnoie xrouuie. and would be worth ten times Its cost to cite people of North Carolina, be side giving them both passenger and freight rates that could not be inter fered with by the railroads except in the orderly way of first being heard in the State courts.:'',;r';.ivv;.-:"",!. . "Asked if he had heard anything; of the McDowell county, cases In which Indictments were ; found against the Southern and its agents, Governor Glenn said: . " . - . " 'I have been ' informed by the solicitor that the grand v Jury had found true bills against the local agent and the Southern Railway. He aked me if he , should issue capias instanter. and 1 4old him to serve no capias until Monday, and that I would send him counsel to assist . him. Furthermore I said to him. - 'Indict the high officials c of the -Southern Railway, not the agents.'". ' The relentless attacks both upon the railroads and , the Federal Court which seem to have beensupported by popular feelfnar, coercef the rail roads into submission. The News and Observer, in its issue of July 28th. under the captions, . "The RaHroads Surrender The Law is Supreme . in North Carolina," published the fol lowing texts of the agreement: TEXT OF AGREEMENT. "1, The railroad puts the 2 1-4 cent rate into 'effect not later than August 8, 1907. , , "2. The State to appeal from the order of Judge Pritchard discharging parties in Ashevllle on writ of habeas corpus. ' .' i "3. The Southern Railway to appeal to the Supreme Court of North. Caro lina In the Wake county case, and If the case is there decided against it to take the ifase by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. "4. 'That both sides co-operate to have both of said cases advanced and argued together and speedily deter mined. - ; "5. The State at Its option to indict the Atlantic Coast Line in one case. "6. All indictments aryi prosecu tions now pending to be dismissed- and no other Indictments or prosecutions to be Instituted for any alleged viola tion of the law, up to the time the new 2 1-4 cent rate Is put Into effect under this arrangement, as far as the Governor can control the same. "7 The Governor to advise all peo ple against bringing any penalty suits pending final determination of the questions involved and ask the people as a' whole to acquiesce la this ar rangement. "8. The suit pending before Judge Pritchard to be diligently prosecuted without the State, however, waiving any question of Jurisdiction." EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE. The enforced surrender of the rail roads was regarded by the press gen erally as a great victory for the Gov ernor of the State. It may not be prudent to dissent from this .popular view. It Is believed, however, that the popular opinion rests upon a mis conception of the facts and the law. If it were a victory, it was obtained by an utter disregard of the consti tutional limitations upon the power of the Executive. The Governor's let ter to the Superior Court. Judges, which he ptlbl'shed, was violative of the spirit of the State constitution, which declares that "the legislative, executive and judicial power of the. government ought to be free, separate and dletlnct from eaeh other." To address a letter to Superior Court Judge advising him of violation of the law 1 perhaps the privilege of any citizen. The court may or may not accept suoh suggestion In Its charge to the grand Jury. For the Governor to publish an . open , letter, addressed to the presiding Judges of the Judicial department, whieh prac tically assumes to advise and to dic tate their actions, was a distinct Inter ference by the executive with the judicial prerogative. If impelled by a sense pt duty, the duty would have been amply performed by mailing It without publication. It publica tion, even before certain of the Judges are ald to have received it, was ap parently designed to create a noiular sentiment in support of the Governor' action. . . , , The perpetuity of our Institutions demands that the Judicial office shall be above and apart from the Influence of , popular - agitation. Thev certainly require that thj high of fice shall be entirely free, separate and dlBtlnct from ; executive dicta tton. , The Governor publicly advlBed one court to Ignore the action of another court of concurrent Jurlsdle tton, thus Inviting a conflict between them, the decree xt either of which he 1 bound, by hia oath of office, equally to respect. The acta of the Catarrh and Catarrlul Diseases. re quickly re!iwviby N'onena. It ooth e the eonirested membraneji allay in flummaUon and thoroughly hal and ileknue. It keep moist all tho passages who tendency is to thick.n and become dry. Cure cold, throat trouble, htr. !!. hay fever. . ofIed-up" nose, lrtathln thtuah mnutii k'UK- Vping. offensive breath, ete. It it antteoptic ami contain nt chemical or drugs bavin; no nercotle effect, or thut.iai c.inj tri "druthablf!---..;- ror sale by W. 1 Han-1 A Co. ami M. Scott & Co. ' , We Guarantee Satisfaction. J A. Brofdon. of the National Blgn Co., tayton, Ohio, writea ondrr date of Octo. ber U, 1906: 'Noaena la the only prm ration I hav evr ued that rllvf my affection o pedlly and pleasantly. I am setting; th first real pleasure out of breathins; that I hnva experienced lnr I contracted catarrh lx yea.r tgo. Money would not buy my tube of Noaena It I could not set another," . , T Buy Noaena from W. I,. Hand & Co., and John M. Scott A Co, Get yoo money baik U iwt atuneiL, 8auJijlft...tube,aiu booklet by mall 10 cent, - , , ; BROWN MANUFACTtTRINQ CO., ' Bt Loula, Hit., and OrtenviU. Taa, SaU ar aiUlryau Na Co. . r a is t -.- ? 1 t ) t t:. i tr t'..s ci'u: ; . ivv, -v; c-f u-.e four; , ;-ra 1, vvhuh may suspend ext.-. j:ive r legislative acta pending judicial 'n- quiry as to their validity. The re sponsibility for their suspension or the adjudication of thair Invalidity Is not ufion the Executive.'-it is upon the court. If the court err, the er ror may be corrected ly appeal to a higher caurt. It is no part of the Executive duty to construe tne courts' orders and Interpret their decisions nor to interject his official Ideas as to the law upon matter pending in court. It is certainly transcending the powe,r and proprie ty of hi office to call bn one court to override or ignore the action of an other court of concurrent Jurisdic tion. -,:;,.; . ,.- . - GOVERNOR'SSINCERITT. The Governor may be accredited with v sincerity of purpose, but this letter was a mistake and the victory he has won by championing thia agi tation Is of baneful significance. It U not a triumph over the railroads; it is a triumph over . the rights cf property.- s If th Executive. . at his Pleasure, mav arouse tinnnlnr ford. ing and reduce to submission so pow- enuu an interest aa tne ; rauroaas, how much more easily eould oe ac complish the BiirrBnriBp nt an :, Indi vidual whose life,- liberty or proper ty mjgm do at stak, and force him to the Governor's "way of thinking?'? The SObl Inrie-men nf n ntalllr.t Jover Of the institutions of his State, upon : renection, t will hesitate to ap prove the recent course of the Execu tive In this matte. and constitutional requirement of the executive . omce would demand - that ita action and ' ita . counsel v uhmiM make lor the ; upholding of ; the cr- uony pt uceuure or tne courts, wnatn r State or Federal, and the one not less than the other; . The vital issue In this' litigation, whether or not the rate bill was con stitutional, and Whether was proper to grant an Injunction pending Judicial review, was a' mat ter for the COlirtH i Th failA hn. ing originated in the Federal courts, . muuiu imvo yruuceuea in ine or derly way to the court of last reBort, ii must oe nnauy determined, without interference of the Governor Or bv COUrtfl nf pnhrilA-a-t tlon. -There .waa no ouhttn -Ttflrrtiiw and no executive duty that required of the Governor his course of action. It Is easv to &IOUSA iuinnlii rn.nl. mept aod -create - popular clamor about, supposed rights. it is not as easv to. eradtrfttB fv, ni... - - w.w yuiuvi, 4U i - Jeoted by popular clamor IntoC the administration of the law. - ims tact una striking illustration in a very recent argument in the Su preme Crtlirt The ,,im.,Al .v. Mate in these railroad suits. Governor Aycock, in an argument on a motion fn a riAu.. i ' c. . mrrlson, who was convicted of kid naping, I. graphically depicted the pvvuiar ciamor caning or convic tlon that surrounded the defendant's trial in 'the. onii rt ti,inn claimed: "The. entire rfyrri beginning to erid, discloses the fact that this defendant was not tried but lynched, and it lose none of its dan ger because it was studiously done under the forms of law." It mav hA aa tMllxr aaf4 - . clamorous epitit of defiance to the or- m.3 . in.i eeraj court, which were dicial investigation, and the public At HOTEL CLEGG, Greensboro N.G That's because of its central location, modern furnishings and excellent bill of fare , HOTEL G LGB Opposite Depot. GREENSBQRb, N. C 1 1 Best Liquors MS i 1 : it V ( X I am offering- the best values in liquors and cordials at the very lowest prices.' I buyxdirect from distiller! who do not sell th retail trade: and generous conces sions on their part have enabled me to make some ex- ceptional offers; , - ' The following prices include express charges. . Lataru Qvh, Cream of Whiskies, $4.00 Apple-Brandy - $20 and $30 Rye Vbltfey, $2M, $20, $3.00, $30 ' ' Mountain Whiskey, - - " $2i0 Corn Thiskey, $2X0 and $2.50 Yadkia Rhrer Corn, 4 full quarts, $2i0 , Albermarle Rye, 4 lull quarts, $3.00 , Mail rders are filled on the day re teived, and forwarded on first trains Write for Price List of Leading Brands Largeit Mail Order House ia the South . L. Lazarus, , Lynchburg, Va9 aasBaaaaaasBMBaaBiBi Wakes LifcbWalk Easy . CaQ oa our agent ia LiLEWIS . A.XROSSETT, Jnc, No. Abbgton, - to I . e f. I "J. 1 --s r- ":e :: ! i -. ; t.-raiu-rt it wjjj tu;:-u;-'y a --; r r tht form" of executive a u 1 : . " r ; : y. Even this victory did nt v it:, .'y the Executive. The railroads surren dered, the Injunction was- moditled and the rate was put into efTect. The cases were proceedina: to trial when the Governor cf the fctate repaired to Nevv York to watch the taking of evidence and endeavored to stop the progress of the , suits. He returned to North Carolina and published an interview, as follows; "I submitted two propositions to Mr. Thorn, .the Southern's counsel,, looking to a settlement, and these are; .:-,.. -;-:t .,, "1. To avoid all costs by taking up first the legal propositions, and let the Supreme Court of the United States decide, thus giving us mora light to act upon. "2.,.To stop the Southern Railway' suit and test the rata fairly, and then If fount too low for the roads to ap peal to the justness of our people and ask them to remedy the wrong; that it is simply Impossible to see If the rate is too low until a fair test for a reasonable time Is mad. "In this matter Mr. Thom has promised to see President Finley, ot the Southern, and see .what th Southern would do.- - "If th qlt continues, no matter what the result, under the lease by North Carolina to the Southern Railway of the North Carolina Rail road, that decision cannot affect th 2 1-4 cent rate on the North Caro--Hna Railroad and If the Southern continues to harass the Norths Caro lina road, or causes others to do so. it may vitiate th lease. "I laid, this matter plainly before Mr. Thom, as I do not desire to take any advantage of th Southern if it will act within tlx law as agreed upon in the lease, otherwise I will act as I feel the law direct?. - . EXECUTIVE HYSTERIA. , ' ' Already, has accepted organ' had been editorially accusing th attor-' neya of the railroads of acting in. bad faith. 4n attaching to their petition for a modlfflcatlon of th injunctive order, th letter addressed to th Judges by the Governor as evidence of coercion toward the railroads. It would seem that, erith th agree-. ment , between the Executive -and v the railroads, further agi- tflttnn fkt . ttita . ..... .. . - tainly by the Governor ahould hav ceasea. ine iact wat it wd not cease . and further Interview were promul- - Headnarters for Southentera ta New e York Olty . . Broadway Central Hotel Oof Table la the Foundation of Our Enormous Dullness ' , Featuring ' : Tho Only New Tork Hotel ' '. American Plan t Moderate Prices -' Excellent Food Good Service Bates: American Plan, $2.60 Per Day. European Plan, $1.00 Per Day, Special attention given to - ladle unescorted. , BROADWAY Cor. Third Street NEW YORK ' DANIEL C. WEBB, Mgr. (Formerly of Charleston, a C)' f at Lotp&st Prices renciimo': T7VER step off the curb and have i, your ankle twist? It's hard , on the ankle, but hard, too, on the , shoe, which given a violent wrench to, one side, stretches the leather ' ' and tugs at the seams. Buy Crossetts and know that even for extraordinary tests you've bought 'safe shoes. , . - ' BENCH MADR S00 your city, ot write us ineton, l'ass. , . 9
The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 12, 1907, edition 1
10
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75