Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1865-07-28
!. Or annaI it withona she eonsent of the

ate or annul it without the consent of tn,
other.
The State claims no sovereign power tf
repudiate its contracts or defralld its citizen,
and the Constitution delegates no such pow.
er to the Legislature.
1fin the act of incorporation the Legisla-
ture retains the absolute and unconditional
power of revocation for any or no reasons
If it be SO written in the bond, the party ac-
cepting franchise on such conditions cannot
complain if it be arbitrarily revoked or Il
this contract be that the Legislature may re-
peal the act whenever in its opinion the cor
poration has misu ed or abused its privileges,
then the contract constitutes the Legislature
the arbiter and Judge Of the existence Of that
fact
But the case before usc0nies within nei-
ther category The c6ffafatet does not give
an unconditional right 10 the Legislature con
stituted the tribunal to adiudge the question
OF fact as to the misuse or abuse. Moreover
the case before us adlgits that the condition
of facts upon which the Legislature are au-
thOTized to repeal the act, does not exist. 1t
admits that the corporation has neither
'misused on abused its privileges. A char
ter may be vacated by the decree of a judi
cial tribunal in a proper proceeding for that
purpose without any such reservation In the
ltct. Then both parties are heard and yer-
dict of jury on the facts can be obtained,
which concludes the question. But the Lee
gislature possesses no Judicial authority un-
der the constitution, and has no established
course of proceedings Ia the exercise of such
power
The party who is injured by It's action is
not heard. The reasons usually alleged in
the preamble to such acts are the mere sue-
gestions of some interested party, seeking to
speculate at the expense of others-profes-
signal solicitors who infest the lobby are ev-
er ready, for a sufficient consideration. to
impose on the good nature of honest but Of
ten careless Legislators, by the suggestion of
any necessary falsehool
If any one should feel curious as to the
methods used by the agents Of corporations
to obtain such legislative acts as may be de
sirable, they will find them fully exposed in
the opinion of the Supreme Court. delivered
in the case Of Marshall vs., the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company, 10th How
ard, 333.
We do not intend even to insinuate that
such secret @7ctee by 'shalJif and uRsGupu-
tolss ageatss 'sttBlHtated to dcttUe pdrttzdn-
siip by tie strong htre ot high prQjits" to use
most efficient means to get the vote "ofl
used in this case. But we do say that the |
recitals in the preamble TO this act exhibit a |
abored attempt to Justify more than doubt |
full exercise Of power hg an array of reasons |
which even if true In fact, might be demur- |
red to in law as insufficient.
The act does not contemplate the exercise |
of the right of domain by wfl5eEf the proper !
b OF individuals or corporations may be ta-
ken Tor some public use on making ample /
Its object is to transfer the |
franchises and property of one corporation
4pAFIogs sFss bY eYeEy & means ~ its R9TsT TO eo
other whose interest is not to complete the /
road. and who are not required to do Sc at /
any time in this or the next century. Where |
in case like the present the Legislature are |
asked to take the property Of one corpora |
ton and give it up 10 another on the ground /
that one has abused or misused its privileges
the just and proper mode would be to pass a
resolution ordering the Attorney General to
institute the proper legal proceedings to as
certain the fact Of misuse or abuse. If
such issue be found true then that the char
ter be revoked or resumed We do not |
say that without such judicial proceeding as
the existence OF the condition in
which the right of repeal Is reserved the act
is absolutely void but lce do sQg that in all /
such cases the party injured. if he denies the
existence Of such misuse or abuse, y has a
right to be heard, and TO have hatquestion
tried before he shall surrender his property
or his franchise. We do not think it neces-
sary to notice the numerous and conflicting
cases which have been brought to our no.
tice by the learned counsel.
In the case Of the Erie and n. East r. X.
vs.. Casey, 2Gth Pa and ! It Grant, the Court
ell s,P4 L.
that the fact OF misuse or abuse did exist
and therefore the act was not void
It cannot, therefore. be any precedent for
4 case which admits that such facts do not
exist The principles of law, so far as they
affect this case, are very clearly and tersely
stated by Chief Justice Lewis, in his opln-
ion to be found in LIST Grant, 275, with a
review of the cases and a proper apprecla-
ton of that from Iowa.
The sum of the whole matter is this
!. The complainant has shown proper
case for the interference of the court in his
favor
2 That the act complained offs uncon-
stitutional and void under the admissions OF
the case.
3. The mplainant is entitled to the de
cree Of the court on the pleadings as they
stand
f. That the defendants have leave to
withdraw their demurrer and answer over
and if they shall so request, an issue will be
ordered to try whether the Pittsburgh and !
Connellsville railroad have misusedo OF abused
their charter.
/ am authorized to say my brother NJ Can
dless fully coneurs in this opinion
Bill dismissed as to the Governor, as his /
acts can do neither harm nor good to either
party. Respondents have thirty days to file /
answer and request issue. If not done IN
that time final decree according to theprayer |
Of the bill, per curiam.
r. G. GRER.