Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1865-07-26
CoNNELLsVILLE RAILROAD CASE.
Legislative Action Declared Unconstitution-
al by Judge Grier.

Yesterday morning Hon. Wilson NJ Cand
less read in the United States Circuit Court,
the following opinion Of Judge Grier, in the
case of the MAJOR, &c. of Baltimore VS.. the
Connellsviile and Southern Pennsylvania
Railroad. The case was argued before the
Circuit Court, at Williamsport, in June last,
and the decision was reserved until the
present time. As the case has excited CON
siderable 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, as
follows:
The charter of the Pittsburgh and Con-
nellsvilie Railroad Company contains the
following provision, viz IF the said Com
pany shall at any time misuse or abuse any
OF the privileges herein granted, the Legis-
lature may resume all and singular the rights
and privileges hereby granted to such cor
poratiOn.
Under this clause the Legislature, by an
act passed in 1864, revoked and resumed all
and singular rights and privileges granted to
said Company, so far as the same authoriz-
ed it to construct any line or lines of rail-
WY oD'RUi1 vi CtSlH Ctiuiy NUN NOI-
anllsvillo
Is this repealing 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 company?
The objections made on the argument to
the form of the pleadings and rights Of the
complainant to have the remedy sought in
his bill, viii be found ver-ruled in a similar
case by the Supreme Court. We refer to
the case of Dodge VS.. Wolsey, 18th How
ard, $50. Ing that place the complainant
was stockholder in the corporation, whose
interests were likely to be injuriously affect
ed by the State legislation, if it should be
carried into effect. In this case the COM
plainant is creditor, who, on the faith of
legislative acts, granting certain franchises
and privileges to the Pittsburgh and Con
nellsville Railroad Company, has advanced
large sums Of money, which have been ox-
pended in constructing their road. If that
corporation submit to this act of the Legis-
lature, divesting them of a most valuable
part of their franchises, the security and
rights of the complainant would be materially
injured. The bill is in the nature Of bill
g,liG Hnet, and the complainant has a right
to the remedy sought, if the Court should
be Of the opinion that the act Of 1864 i'm
pairs the obligation of the original contract
III dCj VI iiiCtl pun ItIOi " Inv L AONS
burgh and Connellsville Railroad Company
The only question then is as TO the validi-
ty of the act That the act repeating the
franchises of the corporation, Or a material
part, and transferring Its franchises and
property to another corporation without It's
consent, impairs the obligation of the orig
inal contract, is not, and cannot be denied
Nor is it denied that an act granting corpOr-
ate privileges to body of men who have pro-
ceeded on the faith Of it to subscribe stock
and bor ow money, and expend it in the
construction of valuable public improve
ment. is a contract, and that 1t is not In the
power of either party to it to repudiate or
annul it without the consent OF the other.
The State claims no sovereign power to
repudiate its contracts or defraud It's cltl-
ZenS, and the Constitution delegates no such
power to the Legislature.
If in the act of incorporation the Legls-
lature retains the absolute and uncondition-
al power of revocation for any or no reason;
if it be so written in the bond, the party ac-
cepting a franchise on such conditions can
not complain If it be arbitrarily revoked: or
if this contract be that the Legislature may
repeal the act whenever in its opinion the
corporation has misused or abused its priv
ileges. then the contract constitutes the Leg
islature the arbiter and judge of the exist
ence of that act.
But the case before US comes within
neither category. The contract does not
give an unconditional right to the Legisla-
ture to repudiate its contract, nor Is the
Legislature constituted the tribunal to ad-
Judge the question of fact as to the misuse
or abuse. Moreover the case before us ad
mits that the condition of facts upon which
the Legislature are authorized to repeal the
act. does not exist 1t admits that the cor
poration has neither ''misused or abused its
privileges A charter may be vacated by
the decree of judicial tribunal in power
proceeding for that purpose, without any
such reservation in the act. Then both
parties are heard and verdict of jury on
the facts can be obtained, which concludes
the question. But the Legislature posses
esIno judicial authority under the consstitu-
ton. and has no established course of pro-
ceedings in the exercise of such power.