Newspapers / The Wilmington Messenger (Wilmington, … / July 23, 1907, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Wilmington Messenger (Wilmington, 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
Site - V1 .1 '.a- -' . . a. -. ' 1 ----- Hi' ft . . f,. XIX. NO. 172. WILMINGTON, N. G., TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1907. FIVE CENTS '4-. 4 .: 1 . T I r - 1; '. : - ; - "ft .4 . - . ' i ti ' j - y it f ft At A i, i. . 4) Ji 4t : ' a: 4' 4x 11 0 4 4 '4. 4 SE ; - 5- 1 'v. EhFECT Will Result in Stppine All Pen- : alty Suits PENALTY Decision oP Jadge Pritchard ' iii Habeas Coraus Case order of injunction issueiTby the Unit- -- . ' ' V" ;k.ait ed States circuit court. If these pros Decision Leaves Law Fixing Rate . ecutions are permitted and continued, Per ; Mile, But No Pnnisnment the result will be to nullify the in- 1 t n.f.n. ! junction which was granted by the dants in Whose Bebalf Proceed- tnas Were Brongnt Were Obey ing Iniunctlon Would , Have Been - Guilty jjol Contempt of Court 11 They Had Acted Otherwise-Were Ordered Released From Custodyi-State Will Ap p eal totJ S- Supreme Court. (Special to The -Messenger.) this seems to be the deliberate policy r - AsheviUe, N. C, July 22l Incidental f those representing the state. I do to the release of the Messrs rWood and , not wish to be. understood as imputing ' Wilson, city ticket agents cf the . improper motives to the governor or Southern railway1, On habeas corpus other state officials as respects -their proceedings before him '..to secure their action in this matter. v -release from custody under sentence 5 The penalties prescribed by. the state .of City Police Judge Reynolds United - statute for charging more than the ' Staes Judge Pritchard today rendered ; statutory rates are so enormous that a decision which is important in etfect j if .permitted to be enforced they would and far reaching n ar case wuicq js national importance. ,:.' judge's decision. -united states of america Western district of n. c. in the circuit court " ' in reJames H; . Wood, Petitioner, in re' James H. Wood, Petition .1 4 J This is the application ot the peti tioner, James H. Wood, to be dis charged .on a writ of habeas corpus from , the custody of ; the " sheriff of JJuncombe county. The petitioner was indicted on a charge of having violated the provis ions of section our of an act passed at the -session of the legislature of North Carolina of 1907, prescribing the maximum charges railroad companies may make for transporting passengers in North Carplinay tried and convicted and sentenced to a term of thirty days imprisonment, to bev worked upon the public roads of Buncombe county. "Some time since suits were institut ed in the circuit courts of the United States for the eastern district of North Carolina' by several railroad compan ies against the corporation commis sioners of North Carolina, the attor ney generaf and the assistant attorney general of that state for the purpose of obtaining protection of the Four- j teenth amendment to the constitution df the .United States against an act of the legislature of , North Carolina es- tablishing maximum rates which such , , companies claimed to be confiscatory, and on a prima facie case a motion was made before me for interlocutory injunctions.. --V - Accordingly on the 29th of June I issued injunctions pendente lite en joining the defendants and -all .other pei son 'i-om pntting the rates into ef- feet during the inquiry before me as to the constitutionality of the same, and from instituting, prosecuting or, attempting to Jinpose penalties upon the companies, , or their employees for a failure to e,u into effect the statu "tory rates which are being contested The court ramply preserved the rights of all th& travelling public by requir ing a coupon to be given to each pur chaser evidencing!; the jamount to be refunded to him in thew event the rate should be upheld, and to secure the same ample bond and . security were : given." . . This 1 was in accordance , with the policy of the statutes of North Car Molina where a rate, made by the com mission is attacked . I thereupon re ferred the' .matter tq a master to as certain' and report his" conclusions to me, and, to aVoid delay, required .iim in the order to make his report , by the 25th of September, and fixed the iiearing for the, first Monday in Octo ber SO- as to, give the parties oppor tuntiy to have ; the question involved finally , determined.. . by . the. supreme 'court at the, earliest possible jnoitf ent," . There - was nothing unusual in the proceedings which were instituted be fore me bv the several railroad com panies in the state. Similar suiis have - been Instituted In- the state of Alaba ma, where-Judge Jones issued , aa -injunction and also in the state of Geor- -Sia where Judge Newman pursued the. saise course. . ' OF OEI lillTE UfJCOfJSTITUTIOlL Notwithstanding the United States t circuit court had thus taken Jurisdic tion of-tlie whole matter and was pro ceeding' in an orderly way with its "consideration, the' evidence shows that the Governor of North Carolina has issued an address to' the J udgeiS of the superior courts of the state qas tioning the authority of the court to make the order referred to and asked them to see that indictments against the agents and the employees of thei railrbads and its officials be sent be fore" the grand jury in order that the the state may , undertake the pros ecutions Which - are . enjoined in prosecutions which are enjoined in my order, and stating . that as chief executive of the state he stands leady to aid them in enforcing the law. In accordance with this policy a, number of indictments have been, found and prosecutions begun in defiance of the; its jurisdiction. (Not only are the - 1 rights of litigants involved, but the Ulgllll-J' ctUU IUC dUbJJLVlllJ' UJ. miv ed States circuit court as well. These prosecutions and arrests, taking place in widely"' separate, portions of the state, present serious difficulties in the matter, and this court is confronted with open and avowed oppositionbyi the powers of the state . Obstacles are being thrown in the way of inquiry by this court on writ of bkbeacorpus ? 1ntr the leffalitv . of 4 arrests, " 'aiid jpracucany DanKrupt. me rauroau ui Ian fi-jfreedmsrlv brief time and berore a final : hearing could be had in tlie J cause, and thus place' the complainant. t in a . position where it would be- pow-' lerlesS to assert Vthe rights which i'i si I guaranteed to ' it' by the constitution (of the United States. ' 1 J If the criminal prosecutions against the agents, conductors and employees are' permitted to continue the manag ers of the railroad cannot susseccful-J ly operate, their trains, 'carry 'the" mails,' or continue their usefulness to inter state commerce . ! - The constitution of North Carolina contains ample provision for the pro tection and preservation of the liber ty of the citizens. , Article I,' section. 18 contains tlie following: - . : : "Every person restrained of his lib erty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof jand remove the same, if unlawful, and such rem edy ought not to be denied or delay ed." . - :,. y Section 21 of. the article also pro vides: , .;. ' ' f "The privileges of the writ of ha beas corpus' shall not besuspended. Section 1821, of the revisal of North Carolina is as follows. . ' "Every person imprisoned ' or re strained of his liberty within this state for any criminal or supposed criminal matter or on any pretense whatsoever, except cases "specified , in the succeed- t ing section, may prosecute a writof habeas corpus according to the pro visionsof this chapter, to inquire into the cause of 'such imprisonment or re--straint and if illegal to be delivered therefrom." , Section 1820 of the same chapter is only law of which I have any knowl edge which imposes upon . a judge a penalty for a failure to perform a ju dicial act. The section in question reads as follows: I "If any judge authorized by this chapter to grant writs of habeas cor pus shall refuse to grant such writ then legally applied for, every such judge shall forfeit to the party ag- grieved two thousand and five hundred dollars." ; U Thus it will be seen that the state constitution of North Carolina, as well as the statutory law, afford ample pro tection to every person-who is deprived of his liberty without due process of law, and such being the case', it is re markable; that any one representing the state should be opposed to the granting of the writ of habeas corpus. Likewise the constitution of the Unit ed States and the" revised statutes af-, ford every citizen of the union when Imprisoned contrary to law protection to the fullest extent by writ of, habeas corpus. . -. : .: f;. ;, '"-'.-4-:..-.';. Article 1, section 9, C T,i 2 of the con stitution of the United States Is, as fol lows : ' r . : V:J; :' "The privileges ot the. writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended' unless when in casesof rebellion or invas-V ion the public safety require it," ; Section 751 et seq: of the revised j statutes of the United States contains the following, provision: -" "The supreme court and the circuit and district courtsshall ,have" power, to issue writs of habeas 'corpus." . ,, . ' "The several justices and judges of the said courts, within their respective j grant writs of habeas corpus for tha that; which, ,if successful,- would ren purpose of an inquiry; into the cause der this court 'powerless tojgrant lhe ot restraint of liberty Revised, stat same, relief that would be granted as utes, section 752. :: . - matter oJ coarse . in another court of inafina nr inAzf -to rftti current Tufisdirtina. - .ilPs whom such application is made shall j forthwith award a writ of habeas corw.i pus, unless it appears from; the jseUrent jurisdiction with the state courts for the performance of a duty enjoiu tion itself that the party is not en-that such courts shall have power and fed upon them in a suit which may be titled thereto. The writ shall be di-J authority to adjudicate any question 4 brought in such court, then the power reced to tbe person in whose custody j that may come before such tribunals of the circuit courts of the Uaitfid4 the party is detained' Revised stat- and protect the rights of litigants to States would be completely paralyzeC utes, section 755. Notwithstanding the plain provis- ions and enactments contained in:the jThe suits out of wnich'"&is--TOn(j64 constitution and re vised statutes of . i irersy arose, were instituted in the the United Statps as well as the statdfeame, manner; as other suits are Insti- perils li tu nuii iiuu i ue ; suiiuu; - ut state, It .is seriously contended that; the agents of the, complihant in this in stance, when indicted for the viola tion of the statute, (the enforcement of which has been restrained: by this court) are not entitled to this remedy which is afforded to every other' cit izens of the state. . 444- ; If this' policy is to prevail in North Carolina persons who invest -their money in enterprises like that of ihe& complainant will be deprived of; th4pther things, the complainant and its means or protecting tneir property! rights', and denied the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus which is intend ed for the preservation of - the liberty;! of every citizen. It will be a sad .day for the people of North Carolina when its citizens are prohibited by the acts of the legislature from asserting any right guaranteed to them by the con stitution of the United States. Suits of : this character h.ave been brought different states of ! the union and in every instance the federal courts haVe proceeded to determine the. questions involved without interference, hind rance or delay by the legislative or ju dicial authorities of' such states. ; The equal protection of 5 the Jaw lis guaranteed to every citizen of the ; United States and I shall employ all means within the power of the "court to secure to all persons who may ln' voke'the jurisdiction of this' conn, fuh : rights to the fullest extent of. thW la w1v Much has been said in regard to the, power of a court of equity ...to -enjoin the prosecution of a criminal caseu In the case of Dobbins vs JLds Angeles, 195, U." S. 241, ; Mr. Justice Day, In discussing this phase of. theuue3ti?u said':-: " y. v. ' ; i : "It is well settled that where, prop erty rights will be destroyed, unlawful interf erence by crihiinU- prceediugs, under a void law,? orcfrdinance, may kbe reached and controlled by4ay!eeii;e man Mfg Cpmpttiv ys Los Au.sreles, List of a court of equ:ty.' Davis Hjld F qr U. S. 207. and eais? there citcd;: 1 l In this instai.e the federal ccmrt has not been the aggressor, lv: t baa-simply adopted the regular practice a: d; pro cedure which has been approved by the supreme court of the United Stales in the cases of a like nature an d While the court is not inclined to do any thing ; that will produce an unseemly conflict, nevertheless, .it is encumbent upon it to protect the rights of the parties to. this controversy and the dignity and authority of this court and this cannot be accomplished with- out preserving to the 'fullest extent the jurisdiction of the court in determin ing the question which iias been ; sub mitted for consideration. If in pur suing the usual and well denned prac tice and procedure in such cases with the sole view of maintaining the jurist diction of this court at any stage of the proceding, conflict must come, and- I trust it may not I shall not evade tne responsibility which is imposed upon me as the presiding jDfficer. of . this court.- Much has been said about the, severeignty of the state. . That quest tion does not arise in this controversy. This court ahving assumed jurisdiction of the subject matter involved in the original suit, wherein the railroad companies are complainants, and the railroad commissioners and others are defendants the real question Is as to, whether this court shall be denied full and' complete jurisdiction of the sub ject matter as issue in that suit. If the contention of counsel representing the state be true, then this court an be deprived of its jurisdiction by the multiplication of criminal prosecutions and thus by indiscretion the com plainant, its agents and employees to such an "extent as to finally place it in a position where it will be deprived of a larger amount than that whicn is involved in the original controversy, and, thus by indirection ahe com plainant will be denied a right - wrich is guaranteed to it by . the; constitution of the United States. This proposition is inconsistent with the well establish ed rules of judicial procedure and doss not commend itself to this or any court sitting as a court of equity. It excludes the idea of, 'comity between courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Suppose complainant had instituted its : suit in the state court instead of applying -to this court and that com had granted an injunction in pursu ance of the laws of the state, could it be seriously contended that the state court after having taken jurisdiction of the questions involved in "ther civil action, thus instituted, would permit the complainant to be subjected to criminal prosecutions and suits -for the recovery of the enormous penalties enumerated in the statute of the state-, . during the pendency of the action, and before there could be an ascertainment as to the rights of, the parties , to the original suit?- The state court under such circumstances, would undoubted- ly preserve the rights 1 of - the partias until the final hearing, and any other j course would- be without precedent-in j the judicial history, ot the state. . T. - j Notwithstanding this,' we are con- f fronted with an attempt on.-the part ! of those representing, the state, to. do The law ' provides that la all cases where theederal courts have concur- . t the same extent as that of the state . courts. . 1 fturea ana. iuvoivuig as tney , uo, iae Validity of a statute of North Carolina, it necessarily follows that all matter connected with : . the enforcement of feuch -statute, during the pendency of that" suit! are under the control and jurisdiction of ! the court wherein the questions; involved are being litigated. The court in the original suit having ; assumed jurisdiction of the questions at issue in that controversy and hav ing entered a decree wherein, among agents were directed to employ certain means and do certain things in respect to the sale of' tickets during the pen dency of j that suit, tbe court thereby assumed control of and dominion over the management of the business of the complainants in so far as intra-state transportation . is concerned in the same manner as if the court had ; ap pointed a receiver of the . property of complainant. - y ; - j As a general rule, the circuit courts of the United States will not issue ; the writ of habeas - corpus in cases where persons are indicted and imprisoned in pursuance of a statute s of a state, and is' must be remembered that this is not an attempt on the part of the state to enforce a law which has for its object the preservatioh of the peace, protec tion of the morals or the general-welfare of tfi"e public and it cannot be in sisted that thee prosecutions are "ne--cessary to promote the f welfare of I the public,; in 'yiew. of the fact that this cour "thas amply pritected the rights of those who" may purchase tickets by reauinng the complainant to give a bond amply sufficient to secure the payment of any damages that may be sustained". On the other hand, is a penal statute enacteS with the sole view of enforcing Obedience to the first section of the act which undertakes to fix maximum passenger rates. Therefore, inasmuch as the validity of the act which pre scribes passenger rates is being con tested anid the Court has by injunction restrained the enforcement of the same there is every reason why this court should exercise its 'discretion in grant ing the writ of habeas corpus, when it is apparent that prosecutions : of j the complainant and its ; agents are being instituted solely for the purpose of der terring the complainant from prosecut ing its original suit.- : V y In. view of this situation: the court Is called upon to determine the question whether ithe petitioner is .entitled to Lbe discharged, inasmuch as it appears to the court that the action, account of which he was indicted,, was committed in pursuance of an order and decree of this ccurt. " . L- ' - Section 758 of the revised statutes of the United Stages is as follows: T - ' The writ of habeas corpus sha1.1 in no case extend to a prisoner : in jail, unless where he is in custody under or lj color pi the authority of the United States or is eommitted for trial before come court thereof; or is in cuctoily for -an act done or omitted in pursu aii ce of a law ; of the United States ; or c an - order, process . or. 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 States : or being a subject or citizen' of a j for eign state, and domiciled therein, is in cMstody for an act 4one pr omitted uCtr aiiy alleged .ight. title. :.thDr ity, privilege, protection or exemption claimed under the commission or or der, or sanction of any foreign sfate, or under color thereof,, the validity and effect of which whereof depend upon the- law of nations;, or unless it is necessary to bring the prisoner into court to testify" - 7 r r The provisions of the foregoing secV, tion are !so plain that there can be no doubt as! to the true intent and mean ing of the same, i It is provided in express terms that the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to one who 5s in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United (States or), of an order, process or, decree of a court or judge ..thereof . !: v ; I In the case of State ve Boone, 132 N: C. 1108, Chief Justice Clark, who de livered the opinion of the court, in; di?-J cussing the "Neagle case, among other things: said: - . . h i ; "No such doctrine is found in Nea gle's case (Neagle's case, 135 U. S. 1) for it only holds that what the federal government enjoins as a duty the state cannotvpunish as a crime." This court,' by proper order; having directed that the complainant should provide , a ticket with a.' coupon, attach ed", thereto ; representing; the difference between the present rate anil the pro-' posed rate, It thereby became the jduty of . the company and Z its 1 agents to strictly comply with the requirements of such order and any failure on their part to observe the sanle would render them liable -to attachment for. eon- tempt, and under such circumstances, ' the duty being enjoined by this court, the performance of the same; by -the complainant and Its agents would not render them liable to punishment un- der the statute of . the state. Any at- tempt to punish the company or ' Its agents for the observance of the order' and decree of this court would.be in utter disregard of the comity "which should exist between the stat9 and federal courts as well as an absolute nullity.v If the state courts possess the power to indict persons acting der the. directions of the federal c un- ccurt t and . such courts would -be rendered .unable to proceed to the determination the validity ot tile' tatutd of a slate legislature! : w While the court Is of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be dis charged for the reasons hereinbefore stated,- nevertheless, there is another phase of this question which the court should consider in ordr that there may be a proper determination of the matter in controversy, and in the con sideration of which it is incumbent upon, the court to pass upon the valid ity of section four of the act in ques tion, which reads as follows: . ; "That any railroad company violat ing any provision of this act shall be lable to a penalty of five " hundred dollars for each violation,: payable to the person aggrieved by such violation and recoverable in an action to be in stituted in.the'name of said person in' any court of this state having compet ent, jurisdiction thereof. And any agent, servant, or employee of sny railroad company violating this act shall be; guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined or Im-" prisoned, or both, in the dscretioh of the court." ' - y y I The; foregoing section among other, things provides that the company or its agents shall pay a penaly of fiv its agents shall pay a penalty of $500 for each failure , to comply with the requirements of the act. It has been held that no state can constitu tionally close the doors of the courts to a judicial inquiry into tbe constitu tionality of the rates it fixes. In the case of Railroad Company vs Minn,- 134 U. S. 456 it was held by the su preme! court of Minnesota that the act in fixing rates was conclusive and there ' could be no inquiry into such rates by judicial tribunals. Accepting this construction of the Minnesota act by the supreme court of . that state the supreme court of the United, States declared the act unconstitutionalj be cause it denied the railroad company a judicial investigation into the valid ity of the rates. If this cannot be ac complished directly it cannot be done indirectly. 'It is well settled that what cannot be done by express enactment cannot be done by device, or indi rection. Therefore any system of "pen alties which is . intended .to havethe effect I and which is so framed as to have the effect of closing the doors of the bourts to a judicial inquiry as to rates, is in consequence of that fact unconstitutional and ; void. Section four of the act in question clearly at tempts to do this. It imposes upon the company as a - penalty for an unsuc cessful attempt to appeal to the court no matter how bona fide this bill is made,! such' enormous fines and penal ties in favor of Individuals as to bur den the challenger of the act in , the courts so as to make it if the penalties were valid practically impossible for such an appeal to be made. In the case of Cotting vs Kansas Stock! Yards Company, 183 U. S. 100, Mr. Justice Brewer, who delivered the opinion of the court, in discussing this phase of the" question, said: "Itunay be said that this is a penal statute, and therefore it is to be con strued in favor of the delinquent, and that we have a right tb expect that the state courts will construe the penalty as not attaching to the charge for each head of stock, but only to that upou the separarte bunches snipped by dif ferent individuals'. But is the language so clear tnat there is no doubt as to the construction? Is there" not enough in it to justjfy a : construction which may be accepted . by the trial courts and approved by. the supreme court of the state and is not the construction of a state statute by the supreme court of the state, as in a case like this, conclusive upon us? The party upon Whom such a liability is threatened takes the chances of the construction of 'a doubtful statute.- If the one con struction is placed upon it then . ob viously, even accepting the largest es- timate.of value placed by any witness upon the property df the company, a single day's violation of, the statute would exhaust such" entire value in satisfaction of the penalties incurred. In this feature of the case we are brought face o face with a question which legislation ; of other states is presenting. Do the laws secure to an 1 individual an equal protection when he is allowed to come into court and make his claim or, defense subject to the condition that 'upon a . failure to make good-that claim or defense tbe penalty for such failure either appro priates oil of his' property or subjects - Mm to : extravagant and unreasonable ;Joss? v Let us make some illustrations to suggest the scope of this thought. Suppose a law were passed that if any .laboring mam should bring or defend an action and fail In his claim or de fence, either in whole or In part, h should in the one instance forfeit to defendant half of th amount of his claim, and In the other be punished by a fine equal to half of the recovery against him, and that such law by 4ts terms applied only to laboring men, would there be the slightest hes- itation in holding that the laborer was denied the equal protection of the laws? The mere fact that the courts ' ' : . (Continued oa 8th Paje.) . TB AG ED Y 0 F TH E S Efl or Collin Rammed by Sctiooner TO TI The Number of Lives Lost Not De- ' ' ' - . I finitely Known Only Meagre Details of Accident Received Nearly All the Pas sengers of Steamer and Many of Crew Asleep When Crash Came. ) .' Eureka, Cal., July 22. The best ad- vicee Conight are that 200 of the 245 souls on board thes t earner Columbia escaped death when that vessel went to the bottom near Shelter Cover, be tween midnight and 1 o'clock Sunday, knorning in a collision with the steam Schooner San Pedm Of the Colum bia's passengers 107 and 37 of her crew: have been landed here and a late message from Shelter Cove says that four more life boats have been picked up with possibly . fifty cf the survivors originally thought to have been-iost. I San Francisco, July 22. One of the worst marine disasters in-the history . pf the , CaJMfornia coast in which be-' tween care and one hundred and fifty lives were lost, as far as has been learned, v was a midnight collision be tween the steamer Columbia and the steam lumber laden schooner San Ped ro ln.Shelter Cove, twelve miles South west of the Medocono-Humboldt coun- tv fl;iin hAtwepn 18 nnd 1 aWvIt vps. terday mjorning. Only meagre de tails of the tragedy have bben receiv ed, though every effort has been made to Eureka, thflL nearest point of im portance, . remain unanswered. The meagre details were brought .by a steamer andthe steamship Daisy Mit chell which Arrived, In. San Francisco this morning) j The Ctoaumbia.', a 300 foot steel ves sel of the -TSJan Francisco and Portland Steamship Compamy, while bound from ' San Fanciscb for Portland, Oregon, wtiih 1,896 passengers and a crew of 60 coUIded with and wiaa rammed by the Sap Pedro, a 170 foot wooden steamer, southbound, for this city. The sea was jEunooth. but the weather was foggy. Tne Sam Pedro, loomed up out of the mist a few ships', lengths away, bore down on the Columbia at high speed, despite frantic efforts to clear With a grinding crash, the San Pedro sank her stem fully tern feet into the Nearly all of the Oodjibia'a passen gers and many of her crew were asleep in their cabins and bunks when the crash came. As the San Pedro backed away the seta poured to through the ragged hole dm the Columbia's bow . above and below the water line and t a 1 L 11 n i i-1 x ., the bottom, the deep waters-of 'Shel ter Cove covering ' over the tops of , the Columbia's masts. . The story of that five minutes is yet . to be told and as it is told by some sur vivors the facts of the tragedy can be but guessed at. According to J. S. Fflynn, . a passenger on the Roanoke, Captain Doran of the Columbia, suc ceeded in launching four" life boats and two rafts before the Columbia sank Flynn in an interview is quot ed as saying that 88 passengers, all men, goc away in mat manner, ana were saved; that Captain Doran act ed with great coolness In the face of death and went down with his ship. Flynn is quoted further as saying that not one of the hundred odd women passengers were saved. Shortly after the collision, the steam- era Roanoke and George W.Elder, and , WC OUCXdlX C3U.KJLLIKL JLUJ -UX1 LUiltiU, till souQibound, came on the scene and stood by. The Elder took the San Pedro in tow and the latet report an nounces their arrival in Eureka. The stem of the San' Pedro was snapped oft at the deck, she was settling and had a heavy list when taken In tow. Captain Hapsen remained on board. ' The Daisy Mitchell . offered assis tance to the Elder but thi3 was declin ed. She picked up a life boat and a raft of the Columbia and brought them to this city. : Near the scene of the wreck the Roainoke picked up a life , raft and . found underneath it the dead body of . a passenger, supposed to be Edward Butler, of Portsmouth, N. H. , - The officers of the Merchants Ex change In this city and of the various newspapers have been beseiged since early morning by relatives and friends of the Columbia's passengers, but the insistent mid tearful requests for in formation. Df the victims and the res cued remaSa unsatisfied. Beyond the repored facta that Butler was drowned and that Captain Doran went down with 1 his ship no details of casultles have been treceived. ' Assistant President Fry e of the Steam 0T1.1
The Wilmington Messenger (Wilmington, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 23, 1907, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75