Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1853-09-29

~s'N~%t~@ . kAAsf NAN Ae Y fG@NAN34AA1~
The following eases have been decided "a
Ma.ssehusss1s. By the supreme soart Of thas
State:
Wales v Setson. Q Mass, Is3. This VA
case respecting the righi Of Tarnpike Com.
pany, IN which the oOart use ths fslloSin laa.
guage:
Iars0as j. 1--WE sro also satisfied tha, N.
rights legally vested in this or any corporation
Cannot be controlled ordestroyed by any subs
quent statute; unless power for that purpoaa
DC reserved ~ the Legislature in the ast Of in.
rporatiOn."
BlaneAard v. Rusasl. 10 Mass. The eourt
use thus language, "a Law made after the exis-
tence ofa contract, which alters the terms Of q
BY rendering it less beneficial to the credi.
tor or by defeating any Of The terms which The
parties have agreed upon, essentially impains
'ts obligations, and for aught we see, is direct
violation Of The soasttIOn Of the United
States"
Aiag '. Sidtam Bank Is Mass, Is1. "But
no act Of the Legislature can altet the nature
and lega effect VI any existing contract 10 the
prejudice Of either party. nor give to such =
contract Judicial construction which shall be
binding on the parties, or on the court Of law
This. howeyeI, has assumed the character Of
political more than legal question, and for
that reason, | cal! the attention Of the Senate
10 the case Of Tie Plaaker's Bank Of AississDpi
VS.. Sharp, 9Th of Howard's U. s. s. G. Il.
I page Sl8, the opinion of the Court delivered
, by Mr. Woodbury.. Perhaps no man in the
democratic party occupies higher position than
doesJustce WoolbIry yet in the case above re-
ferred to he uses the following language: ''Ths
question To be considered in this case IS, wheth-
er an act ol the Legislature Of Mississippi. baS.
sed Feb. 2l. la4J. impaired the obligation of
any contra t which the State had previousIv
entered into with the Planters Bank. Ifi did.
tue clause IN the constitution ofGhe United'S
/ expressly prohibiting State from passing any
such law has been violated, and tie plaintiffs
are entitled to judgment The inviolability Of
contracts, and the faithful protection of vsstek
rights are due to the enc no less than the 9TH
er and are both involved in the present inquiry,
so far as affecting, by way of principle or pre-
cedent, all the various and vast interests og
this Bind, existing over the wheis Union"
The act Of the Legislature of Mississippi did
impair the obligations Of the contract. and Is
for that reason void"
In the case of Baldaia vs Payne, 6 Howard.
page sS2, the Court again affirm the doctrine.
Mclean delivering the opinion of the Court
1t ust be remembered, that both these cases
were taken up by one of those "sOullesS banks ''
and the only question involved was the righs Of
the bank to trnsfer promissOry notes it had re-
ceived in payment Of its deb.s. The Legisla.
ture having interfered with that night, the
Ccur. held the law unconstitutional.
| The next case to which call the attention
2 - L. -
the democratic party than the one above re-
ferred to. l! is decision delivered by Gov.
ernor Morton, while on the Supreme Bench Of
the State of Ma sachusetts, reported in 2Si
Pickering, page S38 The question involved
was whether the Legislature could repeal the
charter of the Chelsea Bank. In delivering
the opinion, the Judge uses the following Ian
guagr This bank was Incorporated April
l6.h, 1886 to continue until October let, 1851.
and has not expired by its own limitation. On
the 18Th April 1887, the Legislature passed
an act repeating in its charter. This, if it has
the force and operation of Law, termination
the corporate existence of the bank long be.
fore the expiration of the term for which il was
granted. But the validity Of this act is dispu.
| ted, its consttutionaiIy is deued, and thus
ruses the most important question we are eAl-
led upon to decide.
"That a charter Of Incorporation is eoa-
tract, between the government and the oorpor-
ators, is proposition which seems to be fully
supported by the highest judicial authorities..-
Thatit is exempt from the ordinary action leg
lative power, beyond these reservations. eY.
pressed or implied, contained in it, is equally
well supported. In other words, the govern.
ment can rightfully do nothing inconsistent
with the fair meaning of the contract which is
has made. Iftherefore, the Legislature grant
a charter for definite period they connot. az
their will and pleasure, revoke it. This comes
within the prohibition of the 10th section
of the lst article of the constitution of the Uni.
ted States"
The court, in the last case, declared By their
decision the act of repeal unconstitutional and
consequently void.
But, to come down to a very familiar ease
with all Of US, aud one of no less Democratic
authority and perhaps entitled to more force,
on account of the position o. one member of the
court that made the decision | refer to the
case OF The State Of ohio VS.. tie 0omercidl Bank
of Cincinaati; 7th Ohio Reports, page 29S.-
This was a case involving the right in the Leg.
slature TO change the mode oftaxing a bank,
where no such right was reserved in its char
ter. The bank was incorporated in 1929, and
it was provided in its charter that it should pay
four per cent. on all dividends, to the State
In 1881 the Legislature passed an act changing
the amount to five per cent This the bank
refused to pay. The case was reserved for de-
cision ii Rank Governor Wood was then on
the bench and eancurrsd in the decision. L
is able and explicit, and take pleasure Ia
reading from it the following extract:
ave take it to be well settled that the char
ter of private corporation is in the nature of
contract between the State and the corporation
Had they ever been any doubts on this sub
Iect, those doubts must have been removed by
The decision of the Supreme 0ourt of the Uni
ted States in the case of woodward VS.. he
Dartmouth College. Powers once granted can-