The Texas Republican. [volume] (Marshall, Tex.) 1849-1869, 1859-04-08
srArS SUIT AGAINST THE . P. RAILaeAD Co

SfAfI SUIT AGAINST Thh . AAAASSA@ "
We noticed ia our last issue, that
the suit cf the state against The : I.
Railroad Company for forfeiture oil
charter. terminated GA Thursday evening |
Of las, week, IN favor of the Company
upon general aud special demurrer aud
that every material point raised by the
counsel Of the old company was sits
tanned. We expected 10 have obtained
the able decision If Judge Frazer and
10 have published il in full but failed Ia
get H. The great point decided IN this
case, was one lying At the foundation Of
the suit. and is Of great interest to stock
holders and capitalists abroad. THIS post
ton was assumed by Hon. j. ;. Jen.
nings, one Of the counsel for the defence,
in the opening speech. and ably main
tanned by logical reasoning and reference
10 authorities, that neither the Governor
nor the Attorney General. were authoriz-
cd to institute snii for forfeiture OF
charter, without legislative sanction.
The charter was a contract between the
Legislature and the eorporators, and con
sequcntly the Legislature alone possessed
the authority to insist that the contract
was violated Having the power Ia M
stiut. proceedings against a corporation,
it might fail to do So aud waive a iefr-
fciturc From the uon-as-umptlun of
such power 10y any Executive Of amy
State in the nion. be dednccd power
ful argument against its existence in
that department He portrayed the rui-
nous consequences that might result To
the State, were this power cpnlidcd Go
any other than the legislative depart
mcnt. Judge jennings was fully sus-
tanned by the Court Judge Frazer in
delivering his opinion said that it was
unlucstiouahly true that the state had
the night To sue la her own courts for
violation Of contracts To- which She was
a party. OF for the forfeiture of any franz
chsc where tine conditions had not been
performed by tha cotpurators Bat wb"t
was the State Not the Executive mr
that was hat onr # the coordinate
branches of the Government Not the
Attorney General. for he WI, but a Judi
cial officer If either possessed the
power to institute such proceedings, from
whence was it derived? Not from the
Constitution, for there was no provision
clothing them with such discretion. Here
was contract, authorized hy the law
making power Of tine Government, and
that power was alone authorized e. ques-
tion The manner in which it had been per
formed The Goycruor had been charged
by the Constitution to see that the laws
are faithfully executed" II would nat
hc pretended that he Posscsscd the power
10 compel judge To- hold court when
hc believed it his duty not to do So, OF that
he could compel any officer of the court
10 perform any judicial act Then how
was he TO see that the laws wegc faith
fully executed 1t was clear that he
could 10 So, only within the limits Of his
authority as an executive oliver II the
Courts were obstrHctel, OF an officer re-
sisted by mob, the Governor could on.
der out an adequate force for their pro-
lection, and the Constitution made it his
duty to see the law faithfully executed
Then as it was mol -luwn that the lie
giSlaturc had authorized this suit, he
held that it was brought without adequate
authority aud must lee dismissed
This decision, based as We have reason
To believe upon sound legal principles,
viii impart great confidence abroad in
the minds of business men and capital
lists in the railroad corporationr 81 this I
state. They are assured by it that their
interests are not to be jcapordizcd 10y .
the action of n single individual. in .
iluenccd by caprice, false representa-
lions, or malcvolcncc In this instance
we believe the Governor aud the Attor-
ncy General did wha, they believed their
duty but, at the same time, we think
it would nave been exceedingly mfortu.
nate had they succeeded IN their efforts Ia
forfeit this charter.
.....s. ~ l..,.. - II. n 4 :...-.