Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1873-06-05

,. .sss = -44--. ~>:s>, ss4@s->
Highly Important Decisions.
! We take pleasure in presenting to oul
readers the complete text Of tho decis
ions Of tho Supreme Court in the follow
ing cases. We have never entertained
4 doubt Of the full authority Of the
Legislature to regulate the action Of
corporations, not even in cases where the
latter have acquired what are called
"vested rights" and We have hereto
fore 90 thoroughly elaborated our views
that it affords US satisfaction to reprint
them IN tho language Of those having
authority.
SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, ocro.
Der TERM, 1872. ~,
State Of Minnesota, appellant, ". tho Vino
No St. Peter Railroad Company, Rsspon-
dents.
The demurrer interposcd to first and
second counts Of the complaint in this
action admits that the defendants de-
manded and received of j. u. Blake &
10. tolls in excess Of the rates prescrib-
ed by oh. "a Of the laws Of 1871, and
which has been decided in the oase Of
j. D. Blake ". w. l. St. p. r. h. Co.
to be constitutional, valid and binding
to the defendants.
SEQ. 8 Of said act provides that il
any railroad corporation shall demand
or receive such higher rates it shall be
deemed to have misused its powers ard
violated the terms on which it, charter
and franchises were granted, and pro-
ceedings are to be instituted against it
for tho forfeiture Of its franchises, or
the collection Of q fine not exceeding
81 900, for such violation at the discre-
ton Of the Court.
The defendant objects that this law
impairs the obligation Of contract, be-
cause it declares that a cause of forfeit
ure which was not 30 before tho act
was passed. '-4s-r: ''.* .->.-,t
The Legislature possessed, 50 far as
the defendants right to take toll was
concerned. full power and authority to
pass oil manner Of wholesome and rea-,
sonable laws, either With penalties or
,0itko~t, not repugnant to tho oonstitu-
ton. - i should judge to be for the
good and welfare Of the commonwealth;
and # the subjects Of the same, Com.
". Allyn Z Cush %, the express grant
Of authority to the Legislature quoted
in that case from the constitution Of
Massachusetts,, Is not found in our con.
stitution. It declares, however, that
government 10 instituted for the securi-
~, benefit and projection Of the people
and it il indisputable that in creating
Legislative department and comforting
upon It the Legislative powers, the peo-
pie Of Minnesota must be understood to
have conferred the full and complete
power % it vests in and may be exer-
cised BY the sovereign power Of any
country, subject only to such restrict
ions Is they may have seen fit to impose,
and the United States constitution
Within these limits the Legislature is
entrusted with the general authority to
make lava at discretion. Cooley's Con.
H., p 81. The citizens Of this State
may, therefore, be controlled and regu-
lated by their Leg stature IN the use of
their property to the fnll extent, at least,
that those Of Massachusetts, may be BY
theirs. ':.-s, ..-s..:<... 2>s... >-..E -
As to the money penalty, there can
be no question as to tho validity Of the
section. As to the forfeiture, the de-
fendants' authorities do not defend its
position. ~. =; ) ~ =. ' ~: :.
Cooley is cited to the point that a
law is void which declares forfeiture
Of the charter Of . corporation for acts
or omissions which constituted no cause
Of forfeiture at the time they occurred.
Con. T., 292. '.,' .is ~:.'. 'S.*''
But this act was in force at the time
the defendant exaotsd the rates com
planned OF. Therefore they were . cause
Of forfeiture when they occurred. j
The case Of Flo 4. jackson 90: Plank
Road Co., 9th Mich. 285, cited BY Coo:
Icy in support Of that proposition and
By the defendant, il cited BY the latter
Tor the statement By two Judges Ct the
Supreme Court Of Michigan, that an
act subsequent to one under which a
company has been already organised,
which declares total forfeiture, which
BY the first act was cause Of partial for.
fixture, is void q to such company for
violation Of tho obligation Of the con-
tract. .:..s: z.=-. ,+.4 ... * /.
The defendant urges that before tho
passage Of the act Of 1871, it was no
cause Of forfeiture atall that this de-
PENDANT should charge rates In excess
|of those prescribed By the act. !
or course NOT, for none such had been
prescribed. Bat the defendant under
Ia charter was bound to conform To-
such Laws a the Legislature should
thereafter establish fixing the rates OF
toll. The question NAV Be asked there
fore, if it Is not = misuse Of it's fran.
chise to exact toll in defiance of such
lawsl
And if it il. the further question
arises whether the defendant vas not
liable 10 forfeit its franchise by just