The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-04-22
UNITED STATES SUPREME CURT. ;

Tho Legal Entity of Railroad Corporations
The Standing Of Pardoucd Retris m United
States Courts.
WASHINGTON, April 81, 1871.
No. s. TIE Baltimore ana OHIO falilroad Company
~ Ellen 7. RaSris-Error to the supreme Court OF
aAe District OF mba--ln this case there was
Judgment In the Court below against the railroad
sonrany for injuries done to the interstate OF the
defendant IN error, IN consequence OF coiision
oetyyecn two trains on their road. The company
pleaded to the jurisdiction below; but Their plea was
not sustained and they bring the question here, IN
s,ssrn that the legal entity or person, which exists
nv force OF law can have no existence beyond the
limit OF the State or sovereignty wiich brings IL
Into lie auu endues II with It's faculties
and powers: AMI IL is submitted that II TINS be so,
innabiIant OF tnis district unless 1t pe shown
that IL been incorporated by law OF Congress,
operat NJ WITHIN te district winch is uot the case
II Il noi enough that The corporation snail be able TO
held property IN the district and control IL by me
acts OF an age nor = ana s tnn the DIS
trscL which IL may exercise by an agent All thls
may be the theory That II Is nonresident
The stockholders and president and directors OF
the corporation cannot hod corporate meet
lng outside the State OF rIiand, which created
can be found within the District which is not as
such capable in law OF holding within the District
q meeting OF lie onicers and corporators. The de-
PENDANT in error conselds among other things, tnat
ihe company may sue here by equity; 1t may sue
here as habitat ana 1t may exercise here all the
powers franchises aad privileges that IL may within
lie STATE q Maryland; aud being habitat The com.
pany Is estopped from aenying Its actual presence
rs an IDEAL person. The corporate powers conferred
BY act OF Congress necessarily confer by implication
she correlatlyc rights OF sn!ng and beng
sued II 1t mas the right TO hold property IN the
District tue right OF defending and projecting its
ownership. This Was rearg ament OF the case.
No. 1856 The United STATES rs. Ktten, and No. 2Os,
Fargoud Us. The United Stdtes-Appeals from the
Court Of Clalms-The claimants In these cases-as
administrator in No. 156 aud as owner In No. 20s-
sought TO recover the proceeds or certain cotton
seized under the captured and abandoned property
oct OF 1863 In the OF Klien the judgment was
IN his favor the Court OF Claims finding that the TAX
Ing OF the oatn OF amnesty by the deceased owner,
Uluer President Lincoll's proclamation OF pardon
of 1869 to all who mad participated IN the rebellion,
relieved him OF any charge OF dlsloyaity on account
OF his having become surety on the official bonds OF
TWO Confederate Officers one quartermaster and
The other an assistant eoLmissary Pargoud.s case
not tried on It's merits but dismissed under the
following provision OF the act approved July II,
1870, his claim being founded upon proof OF having
taken the amnesty oath and coming Oh to be heard
alter the passage or the act
That pardon amnesty granted by the President,
whener general or special oy Proclamation or Otherwise
ae other act 10 OF As condition
any IN said court sha be used or COM
sssS By s S ~ S sal.
,hereirom OF the proof sustain the claim OF
Court OF Claims or an appeal theIerom.
Notion was maze to dismiss the appeals for the
same reason, winch was now argued, together with
the question upon tho merits on behalf OF the
claimants 1t is Insisted that this proyso Of the act
Of 1870 Is utterly null and void, for the following
Fust-Because congress has not the power to
annul and set aside tho valid and constitutional
executive acts OF the President
Secondt is ex post facto, In altering the evidence
necessary to convict after the commission Of the
alleged offence under the act OF 1859.
Thrd-Because II Is In the the nature OF q bill
Of attalnder, or OF pains and penalties; and
without due process OF law.
Fourth-It Is void, because 1t is Legislative usur-
patton OF the powers and functions vested by the
Fyrt-Because III violation OF the faith OF the
ZION and authority bi law OF Congress.
And counsel for the claimants assert that this
ave pardon and amnesty and judicial proceedings
IN cases then pending In court, was In no wise
Ms,ch the was s'uSS Attached
as q senate amendment lwlthout even refer
ser the decision OF this Court in the case OF the
United States vs. iadei ord at the last terms and II
Is incontestble fact that the provso had sole and
direct reference 10 judicial action in cases then
pending and IN process o. adjudication In court and
was manIfesIly intended legislative overriding
OF the law just declared 10 the unanimous decision
OF this Court In the case OF Fadeord. And this
legislation, II allowed to stand as precedent here
after Will put end 10 all idea o. the Independence
and supremacy Of the judiciary as q coordinate
branch OF the government, and wiz make Congress
sphere OF the judicial authority.
1he Attorney General contends that Congress has
full power ever the proceeds OF captured and aban-
doned property and over the question OF It's restora
ton and Ii NAV provide for such restoration
directly from the treasury, from Congress or from
any officer, commission or BOARD including the
Court OF Claims, upon which II may see ut to confer
such authority. And 1t Is said that this Is all
that Congress has attempted TO do In the
legislation Of last summer. IL merely enacts that
certain persons shall not recover such proceeds
by Judgment OF the Court OF Claims. These persons
are not thereby excluded from tho privilege OF an
application for such proceeds direct TO Congress- or
TO any other of1cer who may be authorized TO act
upon such application II is also maintained that
incidental consequences which the law has attached
to pardon the law-maSing power may detach
thereirom. The Legislature, In Its authority over
the rules OF evidence, may prevent q person once
guilty OF disquany Ing offence from being
consequently, py a pardon, disquaiihed to
SIS and note, with cases there citedl; also
the power which controls the elective franchise may
exclude from the exercise OF that franchise all GRIM
finals, pardoned as well as unpardoned. II there be
any limit to the above principle IL must be found
only In this. that those incidents which the common
law, at the time OF the adoption OF the constitution
OF the United States, annexed TO pardon can
not by subsequent legislation be taken away
from 0 pardon authorized by that consti-
tuition. But this Limitation viii not avail
against the constltutionalIty OF the enactment OF
July IL 1870; for the right 10 recover proceeds OF
enemys property captured In war was not an effect
OF pardon IN 1852, nor was any right TO sue the
United States in any Court OF Claims. The right
be beyond the power OF Congress to take away or
modify II Is to be noticed is mere statute right TO
sue In statute court; both the tribunal and the
right to sue therein being alike unknown to the
common law ana TO the constitution Of the United
States