PAGE FOURTEEN
_______ - ■ * ’’
Senator A. F. Thomas, of Virginia, on State
'Rights and Federal 'Encroachments.
The more thoroughly the mattei is
examined, the plainer it appears that
the Virginia passenger rate case in
volves the question of Stale sover
eignty and, if the contention cf the
roads is sustained, local government
will have been destroyed by the fed
eral judiciary. Neither in the re
ports of the pleadings as Asheville,
nor in the demurrer died by the Cor
poration Commission does it appear
that Virginia has raised the one vi
tal question upon which sat can con
fidently rely for victory 1 It is this;
Is the judgment of a federal court
a necessary element of due process
of law? This is the crux of the con
tention. Virginia seems to have
acted upon the assumption that final
judgment upon the matter must be
sought in the federal court. This
is fallacious. The fourteenth amend
ment neither denies nor abridges the
right of the States to deprive any
person of life, liberty or property.
It simply prescribes the method by
which the States must act when they
deprive any person of auy of the
three. The method employed must
constitute due process of law.
This amendment places life, lib
erty and property in the same cate
gory, and affords each the same pro
tection. The State may seize the
person, deprive him of his liberty,
even take his life, or it may confis
cate his property, but the person must
have the benefit of due process of
law. Whether the person is allowed
to retain his life, liberty or property
is primarily a matter of legislative
discretion. The enactment must bo
equal and uniform, and apply impar
tially to all under like conditions.
