Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1865-07-28
dA Aisfellangpus,
THE CoNNELLSVILLE RAILROAD
CHARTER.
Legislative Action Unconstitutional.
important d@eSsion by Justice GrIer.

Legislative Action Unconstitutional.
Important d%@ssion by Justice GrIer.
Yesterday morning Hon. Wilson McCan-
dless read in the United States Circuit Court
the following opinicu cg - 80 G Ter, in the
case Of the Mayor &c. Of Baltimore vs., the
Connellsviile and Southern Fennsy lyanla
Railroad. The case was argued before the
Circuit Court, at WilliamspoTt, ind uue last,
and the decision was reserved until the pres
ent time. AS the case has excited consider
able interest, we publish the opinion OF the
Court entire
The single question for decision in this
case is correctly stated IN the argument OF
the learned counsel for the respondent, asfol-
lows
The charter of the Pittsburgh and Con
nelsyilIe Railroad Company contains the fol-
lowing provision, viz
IF the said company shall at any time
misuse or abuse any of the privileges herein
granted, the Legislature may resume all and
singular the rights, and privileges hereby
granted to such corporation
Under this clause the Legislature, by. an
act passed in 1864, revoked and resumed all
and singular the rights and privileges gran
ted to said Company, so far as the same all-
thorized it to construct any line or lines OF
railway southwardly or eastwardly from Con-
nellsYille.
Is this repeating act repugnant TO the
Constitution Of the United States, on the
ground that it impairs the obligation OF the
contract between the State and the Com
pany
The objections made on the argument to
the form of the pleadings and the right OF
the.eomplainant to have the remedy sought
| in his bill, will be found oYer-ruled IN SIM
liar case by the Supreme Court. We refer
To, the case Of Dodge VS.. Wolsey, 18th How
ard, $50. In that case the complainant was
k=stockholder in the corporation, whose IN
terests were likely to be iniuriously affected
| by the State Legislation, it il should be car
| ried into effect In this case the complain
anti a creditor, who, on the faith OF legis-
| lative acts, granting certain franchises and
/ privileges to the Pittsburgh and Councils
vile Railroad Company, has advanced large
sums Of money, which have been expended
| in constructing their road. 1T that corpora
ton submit to this act of the Legislature,
divesting them of a most valuable part o.
their franchises, the security and rights q
4 the complainant would be materially injured
The bill is in the nature Of bill qua tlalct
| and the complainant has a right to the rem
4 edy sought. If the Court should be OF .opln
ion that the act of 1865 impairs the obliga
ton Of the original contract, or act OF ineor
poration granted to the Pittsburgh and Con
nellsville Railroad Company.
The only question then is as 10 the validi
ty ofthis act That the act repeating tht
franchises ofthe corporation, or a materia
4 part, and transferring its franchises anr
nropertg to another corporation without It
\ consent, impairs the Obligation Of the origi
4 pihal contract, is not, and cannot be denied
Nor is it denied chat an act granting. corpo
rate privileges to a body of men who hay
proceeded on the faith Of it to supscrib
stock and borrow money, and expend it Il
the. construction OF valuable public i'm
proyement, is Il contract, and that it Is no
in the power OF either party to il 70 repndI