Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1873-06-14

rs CONSTITUTE oEALITY ARGUED BEFORE
THE COURT OF ERUOHs AND APPEALS.

DOVER, June llth.-The echo of the
loquent arguments, made during the trial
# the monster West, have barely ceased
o reverberate within the walls of the
Incient courthouse here, yet the verd CT
n that ctse, rendered this morning,
doubtless from Its ridiculous ab urdlty,
las almost been forgotten, aud the ex-
element 1t calsel Is nov Il thing OF
he past. Soon after the rendition
If the verdict, the special term Of
Oyer and TerTniper Court was
and the Court of Errora and |
appeals was convened, Chancellor Bates, |
chief Justice Gilpin, and Associate JUS
tees Wootten, Houston and Wales on the |
Bench.
The frat cases called were those Of |
Thomas W. Bowers Us. the Philadelphia,
Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Co.
The questions at Issue 10 these cases (two
In number) do not involve the life Of
human being, but If decided In favor Of
the plaintiff will seriously effect the exist
ence and impair the usefulness Of great
National highway and Delaware's chief
and almost only commercial artery.
The character Of these suits may be
summed up as follows; On the 18th day
of April last that model Legislature
which was then in session here passed a
law rel sling to taxes imposed on the p.
W. & B. b. r. Co., the 4.h section OF
which reads as follows -
SEC. 4. That If the said Philadelphia,
Wilmington aud Baltimore Rail Road
Company. or any other railroad company
10 this state shall, either as the operator
of Its own rail road or rail roads, or as
lessee of other rail roads Within the
aha M a
per mile for the carriage of passengers
Except 90 far as the same may be in
creased to the amount of the tax annually
maid under TIE provisions Of Chapter 45S.
Volume 10 Of the laws of Delaware) or
for the carriage or transportation of
goods, wares of merchandise or other
property whatsoever, from place to place
within the State, or from a
place within the State to q place
without the State than Is charged
by such company for the carriage Of pls-
sengers aud the transportation of prop r
ty or freight for like distances, or per
mile, from places without the State to
places within the State, or from places
without the State through the State TO
other places without the State, the person
or persons paying such charges, either as
fare or freight, shall be entitled to recover
from such company so charging and re
ceiving the same, a sum OF ten-fold the
amount of the money so paid, to be re-
covered 10 an action Of debt or assnmpsil
as like amounts are now recovered BY
law.
This law went into effect Immediately
alter its passage and long before TIC
railroad company could have possibly
made arrangements to comply with II had
il tried. On the 29th of April, MIR
Bowers, the plaintiff in the case, tool
passage on the P. W. d B. X. r., trou
Philadelphia to Wilmington, a distance
of twenty-six and fory.one hundreth
miles, for which he was charged hftl
cents, being at the rate of $0.0lS9 pe
mile. On the came day the defendan
carried the plaintiff as a passenger from
the city of Wilmington to Port Deposit
a distance Of 81 miles, for which tn
plaintiff was charged by aud paid 70 tn
defendant SlS5, being at the rate OF SUI
per mile. Mr.. Bowers contends that tn
latter was an overcharge, he paying Il
the rate of s0.03ll per mile more thai
he was charged between Philadelphia an
Wilmington, and under the section OF tn
law | have quoted above sued the rail
road company before Esquire O'Neill 70
$1l.50, ten-fold the amount of the oYel
!, charge.
Mr.. Bowers obtained Judgment fo
this amount, but the Company appeale
: and carried the matter before the Sprin
term of the Superior Court for Me-
a Castle county, alleging as their reason
a for refusing To pay that the section und'
. which Judgment was obtained was not
= valid exercise of legislative power, thu
I il is null aud void, and therefore no rigl
of action can accrue to the plaintiff und
a or by virtue of the same that even a
hitting the section to be Il valid exercl
a of legislative power, upon the facts
stated, no overcharge was made with
IA the true intent and meaning OF the la'
= The case being very interesting on
ID bv mutual agreement the Court decid'
10 TO send II to the Court of Errors aud A
e meals and have the matter settled befo
/. n full bench. The second case, substa
s. TALLY the same as the first, except tn
m the oyercharge In this instance, is
IS freight instead of passenger carrlag
a Mr.. b jwers was also plaintiff in this ca
to and obtained Judgment against the ra
Sc road company under the same Law
n. appeal was taken and the Superior Coz
al sent the matter up with the other ca
w and both were argued to-day at the sal
lie time.
e, Hon. Joseph p. CNmegys and Geo.
er Gordon, Esq. represent the appe1lal
,st aud Geo. II. Bates. Ed, the responie
en- CHI rles b. Lore, ESQ Attorney Ge"el
as is representing the State aud malnttl
lis with Mr.. Bates the validity OF the la
Ter The case is understood to be made
lat and the suit brought with no object
res gain by the plaintiff but for the purrp
of Of testing the constitutionality oil
as act.
,ur The argument of the case was opel
BY George II. Bates, ESQ, for the plain
ice below, respondent. Upon the first ql
to ton presented IN the case stared, he
its tended substantially that the 4th sect
iry above quoted, Is constitutional exer'
au- of legislative power.
nee First. il is not in conflict with the
nee eral Constitution. The only proyls
as of that instrument which IL Is said
He eoutrayene is that forhidding the St'
hat to pass a law impalring the oblig1l
by of a contract. We admit the prime
,ity shat a legislative charter is contr
q a and that material alterations of II "
,ere out the assent of the corporation
ON within the constitutional provision
der ferred to, and further, that rail-
Ugh company is under decision oil
any court corporation to which this
city applies.
org The essential point decided in the L
act mouth College case, when the rule
able tirst announced, Was that the eharte
light a contract. Il does not place corp
II ton, as such, on any different footin
act tolegislative control from patural pers
verv and this fundamental principle mus
O be borne in mind throughout. The Leg
and, ture must be held to possess soyer
ence power in It's sphere OF law making
Ne Of The same extent as does the English
IA he lament. except when limited by som
,reat straiping influence Of the Federal or
prc- Constitutions. An act ofthe Legislatl
sufa- presumed to be valid. II It's uncon'
sibie ton ality is alleged the.burden rests
m be those who 80 allege TO establish II
+ the order to sustain the objection the
time must be satisfied that the section
thor conflict with express provision oil
,ssed charter or that II limits some p'
2 the privilege or immunity granted by
self such manner as to have alienate
and future legislative Interference VII
ade a Mr.. Bates examiKed the charters Q
railroad companies which formed IL
JlLrY W. aud b. Company, and contende'
CR. l. That the sestion In question oil
West contravem any express provision O
rdict, of them.
utility There is none unless the general a
~ 10 charge " tolls be 20 construed
stody Il not such grant Of Pewei as 70 al al
sr the iegi9lat,,Neo con nnot IN eTanties a q
N hi any other act, part with the
eignfv 81 the State OF any part OF
I last, VIII any powers in the exercise Of
ed at the public are interested. The right
death, ulate charges Of common S cat Is
Dixon, subject OF iesis,s'. sHsrcised a con
4 with power hHs aiNe3 - ,e.a,,a-,,t npiust Il