Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1864-02-17

next Congress on the same subject, It can do 90 in
Psrpstnur' and thus the express power granted to
ths COsgrsss to make ill laws which shall be neces-
ssry and proper for carrying into execution the
granted powers, becomes dead letter.
This principle Of the sovereignty Of legislation is
now settled in legislative maxim. "Acts of par.
lament derogating from the power of subsequent
paEliaments, bind not Because the legislative
being in truth the sovereign power, is always Of
equal, always Of absolute authority it acknowl.
edges no superior upon earth which The prior legis-
iature must have been if its ordinances could bind
. subsequent parliament" b. 90; Charles River
Bridge vs.: Warren Bridge ct a, IL Peters 4SO. q
The States have 10 power, by taxation or 9TH
erwise to retard, impede, burthen or in any man.
nsr control the operation Of the constitutional laws
enacted by Congress, to carry into execution the .
power vested in the general government" Mar
shall, @. j., Fletcher & Peck Q Peters aoe 2 q,
Suppose Congress were to pass an act suspending
the privilege Of the writ of abses eorpus so far as
II might affect the act in question, until forty days
after the next session. At the next session. should
congress deem it necessary and proper to repeal
the act and should repeal it, and Judge were to
issue the writ as he is required to DO in vacation,
ander penalty Of two thousand FIVE hundred dol.
lars, could the military department of the govern.
ment claim that there was vested right in that de-
uAsA sa0 law ouVuiO cApuc ny Itui6uOu
Congress has the power to raise and support ar
MES True-and to make all laws necessary and
proper to raise and support armies. And Congress
nay raise armies upon the faith of national prom.
lses and pledges as proper means TO that end-.
but has Congress the power to do this on one day,
aud on the next after having by this means rsised
the armies, to abrogate IN its promises and disown
Its piedgess Has 1t the power, as means, to sup
port armies, to borrow money on pledye Of par
tlCulaf ClSt0mS Op tho prvh1So M
the money is in hand to raise other sums by abso.
Lutte sale of the same customs and land to other
LENDERS These are means to support armies.-'
Congress may, as means, entice men to the field
by promising bounties of land. When the term Of
service is expired, and the veteran asks for his
boon, may it turn him adrift and supply his place
by means Of new promise of the same land to
alother2 .,.... s.; i. ,f...,-.l
That Legislative power, Is assertedby his Honor,
civil authority" may be granted; and that one Con.
grass cannot, BY simple legislation control the &C
tOH Of the next Congress on the same subject, ia
conceded. For the excellent reason, rendered BY
his Honor to wit: that If it SO control it for one
year, it can. control it forever. But it must be
borne in mind that general legislation which merely
prescrbes rules of conduct for the citizen is very
different from that kind Of legislation which makes
compacts and contracts with the citizen. The in.
osAASo pus W "0 ioeihOu OuoS0 "a III ~ bukPCuu
ing the writ of ha6eas corpus is clearly Of the former
kind Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher %. Peck,
Or at 1884, ct seq speaking Of the vice of the prn-
cpe on which it was conteuded that legislative acts
can divest rights vested by grant or contract says
may BE- applied to every case to which it shall
be the will Of any legislature to apply it The
principle is this that legislature may, by its own
act divest the vested estate of any man whatever,
for reasons which shall, by itself be deemed sufi
Ic fha of l.-:,.l
to the humiliation Of such tile and to resumption
of the property thus heldY' ..-.-.
"TEe principle asserted is that one legislature is
competent to repeal any act which former egisla-
ture was competent to pass; and that one lsgisla.
ture cannot abRdge the powers of succeeding leg
islature. The correctness of the principle, far
as respects general legislation, never be contro
verted. But if an act be done under law, sue
.ceeding legislature cannot undo it The past can
not be recalled BY the most absolute power: Where,
then law is in its nature contract; when abs0-
Lutte rights have vested under that contract, re-
peal OF the law cannot divest those rights"
His Honor next cites the case of West River
Bridge Company %. Dix, How 500. The pr,nci.
pie stated in that decision is Is follows: "a bridge
erected and owned by . private oorporssiou, and
held tor the purpose of exercising franchise granted
by its charter, to take tolls for passing the same,
may be taken and laid out as part of public high
way, under general Law Of the State, authorizing
the act, compensation being adjusted, and made t.
the corporation IN the same manner as to natural
persons for taking their property and such Law
| so applied, does not impair the obligation Of any
contract" To the principle of this decision cheer
fully assent The next case is State o. Matthews,
8 Jones, 451, which decided that the State may
legislate upon corporations and control them in all
matters, except such IS are Of conapaet between
them and the sovereign. These may not be viola
ted. 10 this chee:fuly assent also. The case Of
Charles River Bridge %. Warren Bridge II Pet
420, seems to be greatly relied On by the learned
Judge The opinion OF Chief Justice fancy, is fully
supported by the cited by him of Satterles rs
Aatlhewson 2 Pet Alb, and Watson %: Mercer, 6
| Pet 10. The facts briefly stated were, that the
legislature of Massachusetts authorized company
| to build bridge at certain place across Charles
River, and take tolls for Certain number of years
| upon paying to Harvard College 5000 annually
After wards, and before the expiration Of tho tern
of years. TIC legislature incorporated another con
pany and allowed it to build another bridge across
the same river so as to take away most of thu
tolls of the former. The Court said that the State
in granting to the first company the right Il
! build bridge and take tolls, had made no con
tract not to allow another bridge across th,
same river: and although the latter grant was cal
culsted to diminish, or even destroy the value o
the franchise first granted and to divest the RICH
of toll yet this was not in violation Of any contract
for the State had entered into none. But if Their
had been such contract the second grant had beef
void. To the authority Of this every lawyer mus
| yield. his ready assent
The next case cited by his Honor is MsRae W
&R. r. Co., p. 1856. The Governor, Council an
Assembly of the Colony Of North Carolina, in 177d
granted to Benz. Heron the privilege of buildin
= bridge across q branch Of the Cape Fear river
and taking tolls, &C., and enacted that the "benef
thereof shall be vested in him, his heirs and as
signs forever" and that it should not be Lawful
for any person, whatever, to keep any ferry, bull
any bridge, Or set any person or property over th
river, for fee or reward, within six miles of th
samen .
Afterwards, in 1888, the Legislators incorporate
company to build railroad from Weldon to W.
mineton. and run the road across the river With
six; miles of the bridge The questions were, Isl