Newspapers / The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, … / Sept. 12, 1907, edition 1 / Page 2
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
('!'::.-iiitiu!ini:tl KeUitions of fMau; and Federal Conns Com ments on Executive Interference. By Iredell Mcarcs, Esq., of the Wilmington Bar. .." PART I. The writer has no Interest, direct or Indirect, personal or professional. In any railroad company. Tho value of the views here expressed. If any, is not enhanced or diminished by this fact. ' It may be eome assurance, however, to those who are prone to nnd In oppos ing opinions a selfish motive, that thee views ere disinterested Tne ' rate litigation In this State has been of interest to me, fcs a lawyer, and, as a clUeen not without patriotism, the ' rate agitation has been of concern. The legal questons raised, which ' should have been settled In the order ly procedure of the courts, have in volved a public discussion, hysterical la much of its clamor and reckless in 1 much of Us, criticism. There la always a calm after a storm, when we are in calmer mood and prepared to view the normal situation. . In the present retrospect of the rate litigation and agitation, U Is sought la this article to direct attention, If not to secure public consideration, of cer . tain fundamental principles of our government, State and Federal, which we should not overlook In our publio 4 relations- tinder any circumstances. OUR GOVERNMENT. 7 1 Ours Is a government of laws, not ... ,:- A 9 vtan atA nnwHnro f nrhltrarV TlOW v v er vested In any man or body of men. The Legislature may enact laws; it -'" cannot enforce them. The Executive - -1. b t . I. ...... . f, n. .. AM?.tltfA - them In administrative matters, it may " cause violators of law to be prosecut v d In the courts, but it cannot direct v. the eonduct or coerce the courts. The courts can neither muke nor execute the law. It can adjudge the law and decree how It shall do executed. The eighth section of article first of our State constitution declares that: The . legislative, executive and Judicial pow- era of the government ought to be . free, separate and distinct from each other." The legislative, executive and , Judicial departments of government ' each have limited grants of power. The constitution. State and Federal, ' . ' aldr.e embodies the supreme will of the people. These three separate de partments, each within the limits of ' ' the power granted them in the conati - tutldn. act as a check and balance upon ',' each other In the administration of government. The system la the dis tinctive feature of all the constitutions of the several States and the nation. n And it is within the grant of the eon ' ttltutlonal power of them that the ; courts may declare all acts In violation Of the Organic law to be void, and to ' , enforce by their decrees the protection ' , guaranteed to personal and property rights by the constitutional mandate, f . THE BASIC PRINCIPLES. ' There are certain basic principles that control the state and Federal governments In their relation to each ' other, which seem to have been entire ly overlooked In certain gubernatorial proclamation and editorial dlscus ,l slons of the rate litigation and ulta t tlon It 1st well to consider them; for a frequent recurrence to fundamental yirlnetnteij fK farvn1inl to nritiivf 4hi blessings of liberty and as well the tight of property. ' The supreme law of the TInitod States Is the constitution of the t'nit M State and the tews which aliall be made In pursuance thereof (Con. Art. . t),A It was adopted, "In order 'to form more perfect Union." Tho powers It contatns were ceded to the Federal government by the different States. This Instrument lt as binding on tho State as upon the national authorities. It Is equally as binding as the State, constitution upon the oltlten and of ficials, of this State. This instrument provides for the three co-ordinate brancht of the government, the exe- euttve. the legislative and the Judicial, at alio does the Btiite constitution. The Congress of the I'nlted States ran- Ttnt l3?!li;e in violation of it pro Vixion. The Kxe-'utlve of this ntlon eannot disobey- its mandate. It is , , the province of the Fedfi-al courts to Interpret the extent and meaning or this constitution and to adjudge when Jta provisions have been violated The Ct Of Congress, although expressing th popular will at tlie tlm- of their JMUMge. not Infrequently have been declared void by the Federal court ' fcecaa in vlfiiatir.n of the national constitution. In the ame manner, the Constitution of the State of North Carolina H the UDreme law of this " State, gobjeet only to the provisions, of 4he Unit'd Statts. It was -adopted by . popular vote. There could not be writ ten Into if even by popular vote, a provision whioh would violate any of the term of the constitution of the T'nlted States, for the reason that the fftata has previoinly eerted to the na tional government all the pnwers en umerated In Vmi Instrument The sixth section of arti le itrnt f the State con tltutlon contains this clause: "That every i;tl?,en of this State wee paramount allegiance to the. con stitution and government of the United State nd that no or ordinance " ' fif the State in contravention or (oih version thereof ran have any binding force." Thus, the constitution of the United fH4tea is a binding upon the puhlic ofMcfals of this State, who, upon en- avnj upon each citizen of the Ht.it e, who, when he realsters us an elector, takes an oath likewise to obey it, ii tn stwe conswttHiotr, in fact. t!he more mo. as it Is t:o pars mount law. The repeated assertion that, if the ourt may set aside the ats of r tft Legislature, the overe.gn rights Affwf the etate will be athroga.ted nml the v t ' will of the people defeated exhibits a 'nt of knowledge of the constitu te tt Of bh the Stat nnd the UnUd Rtates, The legiriature nit l."ie su ' ' preme governing powr of the State. It la merely a co-ordinate power of the gtate government.. It m pass no ' , - Iw. either in violation of the fate or - tiatloflal constitution. It must legls a with -direct reference to and In e-ubordtnstlnn to each. If It trans cends Ms power, it 1 within tie prov iwn of the courts tf Jerlare Its act unconstitutional, a an -invasion of h Instrument In whk-h alone Is em bodied the eupreme will of the peo ple This power jn the court to set aside . tt acts wf the Legislature a being 4n violation of the constilutlonsl man oat his fcee,n xrre! both by the tfftate n4 Federal courfji from the foundation of the government. If I am correctly gflviaed, Ph first Btate n - the Union to assert the doctrine was ?ho! Island,' and the weeond Slate In the Union t assert M whs North Crolna. In fact, the rlaiin hB been made for Ibis f5tt that it was tie , first to weit..flh -doetrlne. THE JUDICIAL POWER, , Th toiwtlt (ition of im Untied 8tto ' ' .- '-v : , . Trial CaUrrV treatment are Wing nailed cm free on renuest, by Dr. fciioop. Ka-tne, VWUc r Tlee tests ' are : prt-vlng to the;popl--wltUout a penny'a rint-t.ie great value of this scientlnc pisCrtpUon known to druKvlsts every vrieie st Dr. Khoop'e Catarrh Remedy. 'B'Ai ty Burwcll-Dunn fltetaH ftore." deiclarea thai, "Tho judicial power ahull extend to all cases n law and equity arising under th) constitution, the lawa of the United States and treaties made, . , , 'between cltixena of Jifferent Sta.tes;" and to other ejwmerated subject. It - will be aoen, therefore,' ithat the Foieral court have con ferretl upon them the power to letermlne cases arising un der vhe constitution of, the United States tend between citizen of differ eat States. - ' ' " . : The Supreme Court of this State has frequently declared acta of the Legis lature unconstitutional - The: Supreme Court of the United States has f re uently declared acta both of Con grew and or the Legislatures oz air ferent, States unconstitutional, be cause violating the provlfliona of the national constitution. Thesa Supreme Court cannot decide uch qoeatlona until they are determined nret in the courts below. They are courts of ap peal The Judgment of thee lower cwurtj, whether State or i-edcrai, stand umtdl fevereed by tihe 8upreme Court, Thus the State court, a a co ordinate branch of the government, may, by Its own decree, abrogate the will of the Legislature. The Superior Courts of this State have not infrequently exercised the power to Issue an Injunction against the enforcement of a. tax Imposed by legislative enactment, berause uncon stitutional, end these dnjunctlons have town sustained ty the Supreme Court of the State. The Federal courts liave not Infrequently enjoined tlh collec tion of a tax imposed, toy the Brate Legislature, because alleged to le ' a violation of the constitution of the tmlted Staites. and Issued injunctions prohibiting it enforcement, spending the determination of that question. THE REVENUE BILL. The Legislature of 1899 adopted a revenue bill that the .railroads of this State alleged discriminated against them In violation of the constitution of the United 6ta.tes. They brought their suits In the Federal courts be fore Judge Simonton. He (had attest ed 'hi fidelity to the doctrine of States' rights by four year of active warfare In th Confederate army. He has become prominent as a leader of his people in the serious condition in South Carolina under Ah reconstruc tion. He was a Democrat, and was appointed to the Judicial office by President Cleveland. He issued his in junction gains the authorities of the State of North Carolina, prohibiting tho enforcement of this revenue bill, before he finally pasnd upon tts con stitutionality; appointed a special master to take evidence, but required ths railroads to pay on the Wasls of the old assessment and give ibond for the payment of the difference between that and the new assessment. If the act enjoined should 'be held valid. This was setting aside, temporarily, the Act of the Legislature nht.ll Its vaiwMty could be determined. There was no sensational proxdamatlon at the ttime about States' rights. After Governor Aycocte became O-overnor, the case va compromised. Tho fact remain?, however, tlvat it was an ex orcise, hy a distinguished citizen nf the Stale of South rTollna. .himself i a Ktates' rtefnt Democrat, acting ns aj Federal Judge. In the exercise of his; iudieial power, in temporarily re- tr)fi4nlng Dhe enforcement of uhe legls. lativc act of this State. AS TO THE SUITS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. Tho u!U ibrougtht by fhc railroads in regard to the rate Mil are Instituted hy the Southern Railway Company, a Virginia corporation, a cltlxen of a different State from that of the re spondent, and by certain stockhold ers of the Atlantic t"ot jine itaii roni Oompuny, residing In Philadel phia, ciitizenn of a dlfrerent stale, against certain Stable ofhcials (not the (J-uvornnr), and, In the Coat Line enwe, aim) against the Coiast Line. These suits allege, setting; out facts claimed to support their contentions that, if the pawnenger and freight rates prescribed by tho Legislature arr; put into effect, they practically confl.s "ate 'their Income upon intra state business. The fact may or may met be true; this I a fact which the Federal Court has directed to be In vestigated. The Supreme Court of ithe United States has held that a railroad 1 entitled to a fair profit or Income upon tthe value of its property, not Km wa tered stock nor Its actunl cost, hut ivpon Dlt value of Its property, or, as the court states 1t: "The mwls of all calculations as to the reasonableness of rates to 'he charged hy a corpora tion maintaining a highway under legislative Kfinctjlon mu't he tho fair value f the property -iwlng used by it for the convenlem-e of the public." NO POWER TO FIX RATE. It tmus-t be borne in mind that the Legislature has no iwwer to fix any rate or In any manner control the Inter-State business of the rallronds. The right to control this .hulne is one of the powers that the Stae have granted ti tho national government. Thene rate are regulated through the Lnter-tnte commerce comm.lxsion. Says the Supreme Court, in Smythe . Ames; "In our juJment, It tnuHt bp held that the reasonableness or unreason ableness of rates prescribed by a State for Wie transportation of per sons and property wholly within ltn llrmits rnuNt be determined wltihmit reference to the Inter-State buslhess done by the carrier, or to the profits derived from it- The Sta.te cannot Justify unreasonably 1'mv rates for do- inestit transportation, considered! alune, upon the ground t.'iat the ear-j rier Vi esmln large ftront on it n- ter-riiate misiness. over which, so far as rate ure eoncerned. Uie State hs no rontrol. Nor can the cornier inu I fv unrensonahly high rates on flomes ) Me hiMnen on tie ground that It will te onie only in that way to meet Ioskcs on Its Inter-State business. So far as rate m transportation are concerned, domestic business fwuM not he made to bear the frttmat tm inter-State busi ness, nor the htter the losses on do mrstle business. It is only rates for the transportation of prnn and property between points wKhtn the State thst the State can prescribe; and When it undertakes to prescribe ntea not to be exceeded hy the carrier. It must Jo so exclusively with reference to woat U Just and reasonable s te tween the carrier end the public, In respect of domestic bulness, The r rument Khat a railroad line Is n en tirety; tbtit IU 1n.Nm o into and its expenses are provided for out of, a common fund; and tfja-t its rant taUaatlon la 01 tts entire line within and without the Stale, can have no application Where the St.t U without aaithorlty over wtea on H entire line, and can only deal with local rates and mak such regulation as are tieees. aay to give tut compensation on lo cal cualno. Th constitution of h Uhited tait provide, expressly, that; "No Rtat SihaU make or nfoe?n ttaw-srrrtcn Tra5r nbrlflgrThs prtv1lffe l - . . -, I. ir ..'..i.i :.y . ... ;- i I rive ,y i . : 1:1 t.f i ::',. 1 . ' ' i'l': pc.j-'.-rty, wiili ut dao proce.-w of l.iw, ilr nor dery t) any xn-r.-niii ;;.!i;u -Its ju-il nsUction the equal protection of laws." the 1 r,r eve 1 v ited by the i QUESTION OF FACT. . 1 '.; .. VUe 4'ir- i, r l. s ,'. to imlividu i-I '' r..- alter o:- 'thing pr-'.il)- and for every onus r v. .t.. .1., .......ftnr ,,p ihnr fl-e- The railroad allege that, under this ! quired to te done, but o a tine of se.Uon, they are deprived, by reason! from one thousand to live thous of the rates fixed by the Legislature., and dollars for the first offense, of a fair return ifor services rendered 1 for he second offense, from ten thous in tihe gi;ate passenger nd freight and to twenty thousand lol!ars for transportation. If this be true, the act ithe third offense, and twenty-five Is unconstitutional. If R be nut true, thousand dollars for every subienuent the act is constitutional. The queatl jn 1 offene. The-transactions along the turns upon a question of faot. The J lines of any ne of. these railroads. law is tnis stated by the Supreme CouTt of the United Siatea, In Smythe v, Ames, to be: 'By the fourtcentih aimendment It la out of which causes of action might arise tinder the statute, are eo numer ous and varied ha the Intsrferejice Of equity could well be Justified, upon provided that no State kihall deDrive fhe ground that a trencral decree, ae cording to the prayer oc me mns, would avoid a multiplicity of suits and give a remedy more certain and effica cious than could be given in any pro feeding Instituted against the com pany In a court of law; tor ft court of law ooiuVd only deal with each separate transaction involving the rates w oe charged ; for transportation, , ( , The transactions f a single, week ' would, expose any company juestlonlng th.e validity of tho statute (to a vast num ber of suits by ethipperw, to say nothing of th Jwavy penalties named in the statute. Only a court of equity la com petent to meet uch an emergency and determine, once for all and without a multiplicity of suits, mutters that af feat, not elmply individuals, but th In terests of the entire corrvmunlty m In volved in th $ise of a public Wghway la maintained.". ;. 2 'r,v'-"' L The Circuit Court of the VnRed States' had tnHadiction of the railroad suits instituted in this State, first, be ca.use the suits were bet'eeii citizens of different States, and, secondly, be cansa they involved legal questions arising under the constitution of the United States. Having Jurisdiction, as said by th Supreme Court :; In - the above cited case,, it "can mako a cwm prethonslve decree covering itha wfliol ground of the controversy."' j f : CONTENTION iOF DEFENDANTS, It -was the contention of the de fendants that, -while the Circuit Court had Jurisdiction of tihe .parties to the uM, tha law, was self-exaJUiUngr -nd an Injunction, if granted a prayed for by the complainants, could not affect thtf action of the prosecuting officers and the grand Juries tall over the State In proBecuang' violations of the act under tha panalty clause; that so far as the tiassenaer act was concerned. tho suit wan 4n effect, a u4t against any ptrson of property without due proceaa of law, nor, deny to ny per son within its Jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws. Tiiat corpora tions are persons within the mean ing of this amendment U now settled. Santa Clara county, v. Sou. Pac. fRj R. 118 U. S. 894, 3S; Charlotte C. & A. R. R. v. Glbbes, 14J U. 8., 88$, Itii a. C Sc S. F. Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U. S., 150, 154. ' What ftmounta to depriva tion c-f property without due process of law, or what is a denial of the equal protection of tha laws, is often diffi cult to determine. ; especially- where the question relates to tha property c-f a qutisi-publlc corporation and the ex tent to which K may be subjected to public control. But this court, speak ing by Chief Justice Waite, lias said that, wtille a State has power to fix the charges by railroad companies for the transportation of persons and proper ty within its own Jurisdiction, unless restrained by valid contract, or unless what is done amounts to regulation of foreign 'or Inter-Stata commerce, sudh power Is not without limit: Jid that,' Hinder ipreten of regulating fare and .freights, the State cannot require a railroad company to carry persons or property wlthdut reward: neither can it do that whioh In law amounts to a taking of private prop erty for public use without Just com pensation, or without due process of law.' Railroad commission ' cases Stone v. Farmers L. & T. Co.) lie U. S. 807. This piflnclpte was recognised in Dow v. Beldelman. 125 U. 8. 8r0, and has been re-affirmed in other cases." A REMARKABLE FEATURE. The most remarkable feature of' the editorial discussion of this question la that the railroads ihave been denounc ed for going into the Federal courts, and Judge Prltchard, tfh-e circuit Judge, ; the fetaia sjd coul I not be maintain crltilcised for taking Jurisdiction in the j under the eleventh amendment of case brought before him. in the first place, the proper foruim (for the pro tection of personal or property rights under tihe constitution of the United the constitution of the Unlted.j9tatee, Whkih declares: "The Judicial power of the United States shall ttat.be con strued to extend to any suit In law or the Federal Court, for, at last, the Supreme Court of the United States is the final court to determine the queUon. In the second place,, 'hav ing a right to enter the Federal courts, the exfrrcteo of Wiat right is nt a sub ject for condemnation. Jt is a mter of preference far he complainants; n this case, the railroads. Has it come to this In North Carolina that a mtin who believes himself to be ag grieved by an awt of the Legislature, wihich deprives .him of 'his property, without his consent and over ihls pro tect, is to be arraigned and assailed for exercising hla constitutional right to enter the Federal courts for the purpose of settling his grievance? Ev ery H'tligant la entitled to exercise Ihls rights, wiicn asserting them, In that court or forum where he believes they may bo the more competently and im partially heard. It Is unwise, unjust and simply subversive of a constitu tional right to denounce the rallroada for this aot of entering the Federal courts. The Nebraska, statutes authorized any -railroad company to show, in a proper action brought In the Supreme Court of the State, that the rates pre scribed by the Mtatute were' unjust and unreasonable, and, If that court found such to bo the fact, to ob tain an ordor upon the board of trans portation permitting the rates to be raised. There Is no such special remedy provided in the North Carolina tat ute. This remedy, it was contended by the Attorney General and otheT State officials of Nebraska, who were rewpondents In the case of Smyth v. Ames, (16D U. S.. S19), afforded a rem edy at law In the State court; but, says the United States Supreme Court: "The adequacy or Inadequacy of a remedy at law for the protection of rights of one entitled upon any ground to Invoke the powers of a Federal court Is not. to he conclusively deter mined by the statutes of the particu lar State in whlcfl suit may be brougtht. One who la entitled to sue ip the Federal Circuit Court may in voke Its Jurisdiction .In equity when ever the established principles and, rulea of equity permit eu'oh a suit in droit court; and he cannot be deprived of that night by reason of ihls being allowed to sue at law In a State court on the same cause of action." THE SUITS IN FEDERAL COURT PROPERLY CONSTITUTED. The recent railroad suits properly constituted In the Circuit Court of the United States. The rail rm4s entered that court by virtue of a constitutional right, it was no con tempt of the state courts, In any view, that the litigants elected to proceed in tha Federal courts. Having elect ed to briiiR the suit In thl forum, the circuit judge had no power to sur States in an ea ui table, Droceed in laleauttv commenced or' prosecuted against one ot we united states oy a citizen of another state or roy cru xens or subjects of any foreign State." It was also contended that, as the act did not charge specifically the Attor ney General or the corporation com missioners with any duty to enforce the act, ttiey wuld not be enjoined, certainly not as far as the Attorney General and the assistant attorney general were concerned. The defend ants relied on tihe case of Flta v. Mc Ohee (172 U. S., 578). The doctrine of that case is thais "A suit tj re strain officers of a State from taking any steps by means of Judicial pro ceedings, in execution of a State stat ute to which they do not hold any special relation, is really,' a suit against the Slate within, the prohibi tion pf the eleventh amendment of the Federal constitution." "McGhee and F!nk,.ias receivers of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, brought a 'bill In equity in the United States Circuit Court against the State of Alabama, William C. Oates as Governor, and Win. a Fits is Attorney General, of that State. The bill alleged the act of the Alabama Legislature, approved February 8th, 1905. prescribed maxi mum rates to be charged on a cer tain bridge which, as receivers, the complainant owned and operated, and' tihe act declared should the owner, lessees or operators of the 'bridge, or their agents collect a higher rate for , any person, they should forfeit to sued t person twenty dollars for each offense, 1 to be recoverable before any Justice ' of the peace. The rates so axed . amounted, to confiscation and the penalty had the effect to deter th plaintiffs from questioning the valid-1 Ity of the act. Tihe act of February . j 8th, 190S, was alleged to be repug j nant to the constitution of the United , States, 'because it confiscated the 00m-, pHalnant's property and denied to them the equal protection of the Jaws. In the progress of the suit, by an amend-1 ed pleading, the complainants alleg ed a large number of indictments had been brought against their toll-keepers, under certain sections of the Ala bama Code, wiikih- In effect prescrib ed that any agent of a toll bridge company who should receive from travel over such 'bridge more than tihe rate fixed by Its charter, or, if the charter did not specify any unreason able toil, to be determined by a Jury must, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars. The valid ity of this act was not questioned. The prosecutions thereunder were alleged wereito be wrongful and' In violation of (complainants' constitutional rights. It was further alleged that these Indict ments were In contempt of the order of the court appointing the receivers, amd In violation of the order in th case enjoining the Governor, Attor ney general and all persons from prosecuting any suit or proceeding under the vid act. Afterwards, the , t'o.. 114 u. ;;., 3 11; 1 : .; r v. ! Co.iai;im. 143 U. S.,- I; T U r, 14 9 U. f., 16 1; Re.'-.in v. i;ir:nei-s Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S., SOi. 2&8; fVo-tt v. JlcOonal.l, 165 IT. S.. 58; and N"'Mi-th V Ami IRQ I Si iKH t'nnrt examination It will be found that the def6nd'.ints in, earn ct trto.e cases werti oflicers of thk otatc, e pccially 'l-)arff.,.l ta.ttK the, pvrt nHnn nf a Rtnt I enactment alleged to be unconstitu tional, oui unuer tne authority 01 which, it was averred, they were committing; or were about to commit onle epeclfic. wrons or trespas to tthe injury of ithe plaintiff's - rights. There is a- wide difference bqtween a suit against individuals holding offi cial position tinder a State, to pre vent them, under the sanction cf an unconstitutional statute, . from : com mitting by some positive act, wrong or trespass, and a suit against officers 01 . scats merely to test me consti tutionality of a etate statute, in the enforcement of , which those officers will act only 5by formal Judicial pro ceedings In-the courts of the State." COMPLAINANTS' CONTENTION." ! It was contended 4y the complaln nts in the Southern mnd ; Atlantic Coast Line suits that their eases did not fall within the decision of Fiu v. MeGhee, but came with the cases of Reagan v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company and Smyth, v. Ames, which the court in Fits v, McGhee had tnem tloned and 4 distinguished from that casej that -by the Revlsal of this State, Section - lllg, the corporation com mission was required, whenever in its judgment ny corporation ihad contin ued to violate the law, after -notice, to report- the name to the Attorney General and he should take proceed ings thereon as lie deemed expedient; mm ne orxn , warce.na rate w w of 1901, which they attacked as -unconstitutional an! Section 111! of tvie Re- VKSII. (nnukl On rem. M mnn af Aank eing the law of tJhe state, and,, thus construing them, the corporation com mission and Attorney General were specifically charged with the enforce ment of the rat hill . ThtHfnM ,( ws not a" suit against the .State, as ousie too no interest in the ulti mate result, !th ttgh-ta only of the railroads and , tft' rviin :vitii were in question, -but it constituted a suit against omcers of the State to enjoin them from - the . enforce ment Of M Y . IttUamAA ' tmMnkftl..4lAAl t In relation to which they had a m. uuiy tu periorm, ; j ; , THE REAGAN CASE. The Reagan case was a suit in equi ty in theUnited States Circuit Court in Texas, wherein the Farmers', Loan Trust Co. were complainants and the State railroad commissioners, the Attorney General and Great Northern .Railroad Company were defendants. ; The complainants al leged the rates put in effect by the railroad commission, under the au thority of the Texas statute, were con fiscatory, and obtained a perpetual In junction against the defendant rail road from putting or continuing in ef fect the rates, and against the railroad commission and Attorney General of Texas from itnf ltirttn.. nn ,. tnm penalties tinder the act. The act pro- viaea iBrwt any radiWKWl or agent wiho received more thap the stated rates, should he fined not teas than 11 00 or more than $5,000. The doctrine of tho case Is it'hat: "A suit to restrain the enforcement by State officers of un Juat and unreasonable rates fixed for carriers by State authority is. npt a suil against ehe State, wltihifn the proihlbMlon of -the eleyemth airiend memt, since the State 1s Interested only -...'U- 1 - 7 ' From the fields to the Factory, thence to over a millibn pleaaed customers goes Bailey brothers Tobaccos Tb, & ti No better tobaccos made than those Manufactured by Baiur Bkorktks, t . Winston-Salem, K. C KOT IK A TRUST. OFHCE M. P. B. & L ASSOCIATION September 20, 1907. t . V remder his Jurisdiction uid remand j complainants, of their own motion, the cane to the State tribunal. Every intelligent lawyer knows this. And, yet, his failure to do so has been made the ubjeit of newspaper criticism. Ho had to proceed with the ica and determine the questions "Involved, in the llgtht of the Federal dec.Wons and th procedure of the United States air cult courts. The Supreme Court of -tho VMted Rtatt in the case of Smythe v. Ames, wherein It elaborately reviews th' au thorities, sifter citing a number of its previous decisions 1n cases similar to tihose pending 1n this State before the United States circuit Judge, said;; SUPREM K COURT DECISION, "In these ca.es the platotlffs, stock holders In the corporations named aek a decree enjoining h enfirce.' ment o.f certain rate or trans porta, Hon, upon the ground that the statute prescribing hem 4s Tpugnnt to the consttlurlon of the United States. Un der the principles which in the Feder al syitem distinguish cases In Jaw from those in equity, the a rcu It Court of the United States, sitting in equity, can make a comprehensive decree A-Catarrh Curo That Cures.. While there have been many "al leged catarrh cures wtilrh have made marvelous claims only to re ult In disappointment ... -.for the sufferer, there are thousands who will testify that Herring's Catarrh Cure l all that the name implies. From the very first immediate relief is given ftno permanent cure i follows, But the very beat proof "of this state ment is to be found la everv hotti of this scientifically prepared remsdy.'i it Aismson's Drug more. ft.vv prr uodif, dismissed the hill as against th State and the Governor. Twa court tield, although the RMte and Governor had been dismissed ts parties thereto, 'the ease was In effect a suit iigalnst the Plate. The reasons for its decisions are thus stated: ' ; REASONS rOR DECISION. "As a $Utte can act only by it! of fleers, an order restraining those of fliers fromi taking any steps, by means of Judicial proceedings, m ex ecution of .the statutis of Pebruary Jth, 1IJI, is one which restrains tfhe Stat Itself, and the cult Is as much against the State as if the State were named as a party defendant en the record.' If the Individ iml defendant held -possession or were al)out te take posses sion of or to commit any trespass upon any property belonging to or un der the control of the plaintiffs, in violation of the lAtter's constitutional rights, they could not resist the Judi cial determination, : in eult against them, or une questton f tae right to sucth poisesaksn, by elmply asserting that they held, or were entitled to hold, the property tn Wielr ypaclty as omcers n xne mate, in tne esse sup posed tney would he compelled to make good the State' claim to the property, tana could not shield them selves against suit because of their omctai character. , Xlndal v.. Wesley, 197 U. S., 204, 323. .No suctM. cms la oerore us. , fit is to tie observed thst neither the Attorney General of Alabama nor tho solicitor of the eleventh Judicial circuit of the etate, fcppeare to 3iave been charged by law -with any p. flai duty in connection with- the aict of February eth, IMS. - in etipport of the contention that the . present nit 1 not negrnsrt3ie Jtnte.-ref A word to prospective BUYERS or BUILDERS of homes for next " " ...... -- ' , - , . ... y spring. Now is your time to subscribe and1 file your application so that jour loan is reached in time for NEXT spring's operation , Too many applicants wait until they need the money and expect a Be &L. Asso., like a bank, to have it ready for them at a moment notice It is well id bear in mind that a Be & Le Assoe has but one source of raising money, and that is; frorn the " 'weekly, dues, hence we can . supply borrowers no faster than the weekly receipts, which, Vhile they are now the large sum of from $6,000 to $8,000 per week, against which arc applicants for TEN TIMES that amount, so take "a; stitch - in time, etc. tt 1 .i a. m. & reus. . a.; m ut i. rres. o &4-j0k.ji.&. jSih,.. ssv,fc,h e,..k iiifcSv. 1 1 ii rv:
The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 12, 1907, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75