Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1864-02-16

he4I OouSresS on tne same Suo)ect IL can 90 80 IN
PerPetuur1, and thus the express power granted TO
the Congress to make all laws which shall be neces
sary and proper for carrying into execution the
granted powers, becomes q 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
parliaments, 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 egis
lature must have been if its ordinances could bind
subsequent parliament" ! b. 90; Charles River
Bridge Us. Warren Bridge ct Al, IL Peters 420.
The States have 10 power, by taxation or 9TH
erwise to retard, impede, burthen or in any man.
ner control the operation of the constitutional laws
enacted 6y Congress, TO carry into execution the
power vested in the general government" Mar
shall, Q. j., Fletcher & Peck, 2 Peters 30s.
Suppose Congress we're to pass an act suspending
the privilege of the writ of hG5eaS corpus far
it 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 a Judge to
issue the writ as he is required to do in vacation,
under 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-
Partment until the law should expire by limitation 2"
Congress has the power to raise and support
mics. True-and to make all laws necessary and
proper to raise and support armies. And Congress
may 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,
and on the next after having by this means raised
the armies, to abrogate all its promises and disown
its pledges Has 1t the power as a means, to sup
port armies, to borrow money on pledge Of par
tcular customs or the public lands and so soon as
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-
COnPreSS a anfipa ma tO fha fald
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
another?
That Legislative power" as asserted by his Honor,
is the life principle which directs the operations of
civil authority" may be granted and that one Con-
gress cannot, by simple legislation control the
tion of the next Congress the same subject is
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
prescribes rules Of conduct for the citizen is very
different from that kind Of legislation which makes
compacts and contracts with the citizen The in.
stance put by the learned Judge of an act suspend
ing the writ of hd6eGS corpus is clearly of the former
kind Chief Justice Marshall, in Fletcher rs Peck,
Cr at 134, ct seq speaking of the vice of the prn
cpe on which 1t was contended that legislative acts
can divest rights vested by grant contract says,
''lt 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 sufR
cient Is the power of the legislature competent
to the annhilation of such tisle and to resumption
Of the property thus heldg'
"TEe principle asserted is that one legislature is
competent to repeal any act which former legsla-
ture was competent to pass; and that one legsla-
ture cannot abridse the powers of succeeding leg
iSlature. The correctness of the principle 80 far
as respects general legislation can never be contro
verted But If an act be done under a law, a sue
ceeding legislature cannot undo it The past can
not be recalled by the most absolute power. Where,
then, law is in its nature q contract; when abso
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 rs. Dix, 6 How. 529. The prlnc
pie stated in that decision is follows: "A bridge
erected and owned by private corporation, and
held for the purpose Of exercising franchise granted
by its charter, to take tolls for passing the same
may be taken and laid out part of public high
way, under general law Of the State, authorizing
the act, compensation being adjusted, and made to
the corporation Ill 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 Us. Matthew'S
legislate upon corporations and control them in all
matters, except such as of cOnlpact between
thelE and the sovereign. These may not he viola
ted To this chee-lully assent also. The case of
Charles River Bridge Us. arren Bridge, ii Pet
42o seems to be greatly relied on by the learned
Judge. The opinion OF Chief Justice fancy, is fully
supported by the cases cited by him OF Satterlee rs
MatUhewsOn, Pet 4lS, and Watson US. Mercer s
Pet 10. The facts briefly Stated We're, chat the
legislature of Massachusetts authorized q 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
Afterwards, and before the expiration of the term
of years, the legislature incorporated another
pany and allowed it to build another bridge
the river so near as to take away most of the
tolls of the former. The Court SAID that the State
in granting to the first company the right to
build bridge and take tolls, had made no con-
tract not to allow another bridge across the
same river and although the latter grant was cal
culated 20 diminish, even destroy the value of
the franchise first granted and to diveSt the right
of TOLL yet this not in violation Of any contract
for the State had entered into none. But if there
had been such contract the second grant had been
void. To the authority Of this every lawyer must
yield his ready assent
The next case cited by his Honor is MGRae W.
& R. Il. Co., 3p. 1s6. The Governor, Council and
Assembly of the Colony of North Carolina in 1915,
granted to Benz. Heron the privilege of building
n bridge across branch Of the Cape Fear river,
and taking tolls, &c, and enacted that the "beneft
thereof shall be vested in him, his heirs and as
signs forever" and that " it should not be lawful
for any person. whateyer, to keep any ferry, build
any bridge, set any person or proEsrty over the
river for fee or reward, within siKS'miles of the
same
Afterwards, in 1888, the Legislature incorporated
a company to build railroad from Weldon to Will
mington and run the road across the river within
six miles of the bridge. The questions were, 1st,
whether, admitting the Legislature 10 have made
contract with Heron, such bridge as that which
constitutes part of railroad was within the scope