The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-01-25
For the iaainaaiu.
ON lRREPEALABLE LAWS.

entertainment of the jun limits of Legislative
power. In England fuch an attempt is nugato-
~, from the principle which there prevails of
the omnipotence OF parliament: but in Ameri-
"a, where legislators well as other magistrates,
are agents of the people, for prefcribed and Ii
u;ited purpofes. this fubjecf is truly important.
In vain have our bills OF rights and conititut-
ons permitted the free exercife of legislative
power, except as reftrained by thote inftrumepts
refpectiveiy, or Ivy the operation of great prn-
ciples, If an exiting legislature can extend the
prohih'tion; can ahridgc the power of future
Legislatures, by leginating under an irrepcalablc
form. In vain have the people provided for
perennial and coexifing Legislature, if the foun-
dation of its powers can be taken away if it
can be rendered nullity by the aiumptions of
an antscedent Legislature.
This fubjeSt is not merely fpecplati one
1t is fsid, the bef authority, that the legfla-
ture of Mallachufetts at a late felton,, pafled
near thirty irrcpealable laws, in the fhape of
charters, acts of Incorporation, executive privi-
leges, &c. Not denying that /ome of thofe
laws ttand fulfilled, even by the principles now
admitted by the writer, the probability is, that
fome others of them are infrattions on the rights
Of future legislatures, and infringements of the
contribution. a lirnilar fpirt fecms gaining
ground in other fates, and hence this diicut,ion
fsems important.
Jf Legislative act be nrcpealable, be para
mount to the power of future Legislatures, this
effect clearly aries, not from the form which
may be given to the inftrument 1T mutt arife
only from the operation and effect of great pIin-
cipes, in relation to the fnbic6, and the parties
to the act, in relation to benefits reiuting there
from to the public. Our bill of rights has
drawn the line with fufficient dftinctnefs i'm ref
pet of executive priviledges or emoluments, by
declaring, that they tha be ga ,nted only ia corr
federation Of public IerViees. Where this defde-
r0tum is wanting, the irrepeaablc character of
the act ceafes, whatever may be IFS form. In
foue cafes the at is irTepeaable by having its
effect, INC g soGeni Rafa as where an act cor
seys public property to an individual, in conf
deration of a fair compensation received In
this cafe, from the nature of the tranfaaion,
from the principles of immttabic iuifice, the
aetis beyond the reach offuture legislatures, by
xhaying already had its complete effea In
other'cates, laws granting privileges and emo
iuments,xs irrepcalablc, from the clear refult
or DEMENT'S to the community. Ifin a clear cafe
the legislature grants the privilege, for an ade-
quate confederation, to continue only during
the exinence of the confederation, (ifit be a con.
tinuing one.) the good faith due By future L.
Siittnres to this fair contract, and the fanction
given by the aforementioned article of the bill
ofrights, in relation to grants of executive pri-
vreges, would teem to guarantee the aet but
If legislature thali grant an important public
right in confederation of none, or rery made
qnate compensation, or grant bey1betuaI privi-
lege, on confederation expiring at fhort dav.
(Which would therefore feem to be mere covers
for the ufurpation of power,) no principles
known TO the writer hereof, can iufify the act
a. irrepeaable.
will put the cafe. which is very ftropg one.
OF Col. Mayo's bridge. When. this privilege
was granted, it was not for the benefit of tbe
grantee only, but ado for that of the public
on no other ground than this Taft, could the lc-
giflsture pretend to the power. 1t was conf
dered that the erection would conduce TO the
public benefit. SO long as things remain in an
ordinary fate; 70 long as this bridge ihall con-
tiHue to be a real public benefit 20 long even
as it fhall remain Objectionable, whether it be 70
or not, the privilege is inviolable. But an Or
der of things. may, by pofiibity, arife, which
may change the rate of the tranfaction; which
WAS not contemplated by either party a, the
time of the grant, aud which would fcem TO
produce different r-iiait Richmond, ffor tx
ample, may become as large city AS Mofcow
it may extend up TO Weaham. In that event,
could the city be faid to. be benefited by the
continuance ofthe executive privilege? Would
not the confederation on which the grant was
made be clearly feen to fail? Would not the
grantee receive emoluments not only without
rendering adequate iervices, but even for OBJ
frueting fervices of iinilar nature. which
might be rendered by others Is it not evident
that this is Gtuation of things entirely extraoy
dinary, and not contemplated by the parties
, 1t mutt be admitted, therefore, that while ,ll
juft refpect is paid to the inviolabty of public
privileges. converted into private pro pcrty, if
ought not to be carried to an extent fubverfive
OF all thofe considerations which dictated, and
arfe ont of the claufe of the bill of rights before
mentioned, and which both parties mutt be
conlidered to have had in view. In fuch cafe
however, the fprit of equity fteps in, and pro.
tcees the grantee from lofs. That fprit runs
thro' all ciailes ofcortra6ts, and relieves under
adequate circumstances, on granting fair COM
Pentation. This c0urfe appears much more
conducive i'll fuch circumstances to fair & equal
juitiee, than one, which, on grounds which have
elearly failed, ceafed to exit prefervcs to the
individual, PERPETUAL and uncompenfated bene-
fits.
Such then, and fuch only, are the only fold
foundations of irrepealable laws, and fuch is a
geDerai view of the degree of invioabilitv TO
v,hic. they can reafonably lay clam.-That in
vioaoility, it is readily admitted, however,
fhould not be at1ailcd under doubtful circum
frances. The relpe6t due to the rights of pro-
perty, viii preponderate in all cafes which are
no. ptIpable. In fiiustion Of doubt, the right
Of The pohsior is TO be preterTed.--But it is
clear that il is not the zriU of the legi1at,re