Ex parte Wood

• Citation: 155 F. 190
• Parties: Ex parte WOOD.
• Decision Date: 22 July 1907
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

155 F. 190

Ex parte WOOD.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. North Carolina.

July 22, 1907

Jas. H Wood, W. B. Rodman, and Moore & Rollins, for petitioner.

Jas. H Merrimon, for the State.

PRITCHARD Circuit Judge.

This is an application of the petitioner, Jas. H. Wood, to be discharged on a writ of habeas corpus from the custody of the sheriff of Buncombe county. The petitioner was indicted on a charge of having violated the provisions of section 4 of an act passed at the session of the Legislature of North Carolina of 1907 (Pub. Laws 1907, p. 250, c. 216) prescribing the maximum charges railroad companies may make for transporting passengers in North Carolina, tried and convicted, and sentenced to a term of 30 day's imprisonment to be worked upon the public roads of Buncombe county.

Some time since suits were instituted in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of North Carolina by several railroad companies against the Corporation Commissioners of North Carolina, the Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney General of that state, for the purpose of obtaining protection of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States against an act of the Legislature of North Carolina establishing maximum rates which such companies claimed to be confiscatory, and, on a prima facie case, a motion was made for interlocutory injunctions. Accordingly, on the 29th of June, injunctions pendente lite were issued enjoining the defendants and all other persons from putting the rates into effect during the inquiry as to the constitutionality of the same, and from instituting prosecutions or attempting to impose penalties upon the companies, or their employes, for a failure to put into effect the statutory rates which are being contested. The court amply preserved the rights of the traveling public by requiring a coupon to be given to each purchaser evidencing the amount to be refunded to him in the event the rates should be upheld, and to secure the same ample bond and security were given. This was in accordance with the law of North Carolina where a rate made by the Commission is attacked. Thereupon the matter was referred to a master to ascertain the facts and report his conclusions, and, to avoid delay, he was required to make his report by the 25th of September, and the hearing was fixed for the first Monday in October, so as to give the parties an opportunity to have the questions involved finally determined by the Supreme Court at the earliest possible moment. There was nothing unusual in the proceedings instituted by the several railroad companies in the state. Similar suits have been instituted in the state of Alabama, where Judge Jones issued an injunction, and also in the state of Georgia, where Judge Newman pursued the same course. Notwithstanding the United States Circuit Court had thus taken jurisdiction of the whole matter and was proceeding in an orderly way with its consideration, the evidence shows that the Governor of North Carolina has issued an address to the judges of the superior courts of the state questioning the authority of the court to make the order referred to, and asking them to see that indictments against the agents and employes of the railroads and its officials be sent before the grand jury in order that the state may undertake the prosecutions which are enjoined in my order, and stating that, as chief executive of the state, he stands ready 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 order of injunction issued by this Circuit Court. If these prosecutions are permitted and continued, the result will be to nullify the injunction which was granted by the court, and to practically defeat its jurisdiction. Not only are the rights of litigants involved, but the dignity and authority of the Circuit Court of the United States as well. These prosecutions and arrests, taking place in widely separated portions of the state, present serious difficulties in the matter, and this court is confronted with open and avowed opposition by the powers of the state. Obstacles are being thrown in the way of inquiry by this court on writs of habeas corpus into the legality of arrests, and this seems to be the deliberate policy of those representing the state. The court does not wish to be understood as imputing improper motives to the Governor or other state officials. The penalties prescribed by the state statute for charging more than the statutory rates are so enormous that, if permitted to be enforced, they would practically bankrupt the railroad in an exceedingly brief time, and before a final hearing could be had in the cause, and thus place the complainant in a position where it would be powerless to assert a right which is guaranteed to it by the Constitution of the United States. If the criminal prosecutions against the agents, conductors, and employes are permitted to continue, the managers of the railroads cannot successfully operate their trains, carry the mails, or continue their usefulness as common carriers doing an interstate business.

The Constitution of North Carolina contains ample provision for the protection and preservation of the liberty of the citizen.

Article 1, Sec. 18, contains the following:

'Every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful; and such remedy ought nor to be denied or delayed.'

Section 21 of the same article also provides:

'The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.'

Section 1821 of the Revisal of North Carolina of 1905 is as follows:

'Every person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty within this state, for any criminal or supposed criminal matter or on any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in the succeeding section, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus according to the provisions of this chapter, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint, and if illegal, to be delivered therefrom.'

Section 1828 of the same chapter is the only law of which the court has any knowledge that imposes upon a judge a penalty for a failure to perform a judicial act. The section in question reads as follows:

'If any judge authorized by this chapter to grant writs of habeas corpus shall refuse to grant such writ when legally applied for, every such judge shall forfeit to the party aggrieved two thousand and five hundred dollars.'

Thus it will be seen that the state Constitution of North Carolina, as well as the statutory law, affords ample protection to every person who is deprived of his liberty without due process of law, and, such being the case, it is remarkable that any one representing the state should be opposed to the granting of the writ of habeas corpus. Likewise, the Constitution of the United States and the Revised Statutes afford every citizen of the Union when imprisoned contrary to law protection to the fullest extent by the writ of habeas corpus.

Article 1, Sec. 9, cl. 2, of the Constitution of the United States, is as follows:

'The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.'

Section 751 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 592) contains the following provisions:

'The Supreme Court and the Circuit and District Courts shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus.'

'The several justices and judges of the said courts, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty. ' Rev. St. Sec. 752.

'The court, or justice, or judge to whom such application is made shall forthwith award a writ of habeas corpus, unless it appears from the petition itself that the party is not entitled thereto. The writ shall be directed to the person in whose custody the party is detained. ' Rev. St. Sec. 755.

Notwithstanding the plain provisions and enactments contained in the Constitution and Revised Statutes of the United States' as well as the state Constitution and the statutes of the state, it is seriously contended that the agents of the complainant in this instance, when indicted for the violation of the statute (the enforcement of which has been restrained by this court), are not entitled to a remedy which is afforded to every other citizen of the state. If this policy is to prevail in North Carolina, persons who invest their money in enterprises like that of the complainant will be deprived of the means of protecting their property rights and denied the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus which is intended 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 Constitution of the United States. Suits of this character have been brought in different states of the Union, and in every instance the federal courts have proceeded to determine the questions involved without interference, hindrance, or delay by the legislative or judicial authorities of such states. The equal protection of the law is guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, and I shall employ all means within the power of the court to secure to persons who invoke the jurisdiction of this court such rights to the fullest extent of the law. If the law is construed in a spirit of fairness and impartiality, there can be no conflict of jurisdiction between the state courts and the courts of the United States.

Much has...