, 1874-12-21

;, correct, the only effeot Of tlto alteration
h tho charters Of the companies was to de-
priya the,n Of their co1nmon-1aw right of
cht lining reasonable remuneration for their
rer:iees NJ co:l,nlon carriers. Iii 1lohYoKr
De LYMAN, tho second c:so iii tito Supreme
Co::rt Of tho United Statcs refc,rel to by
Chisf.Justico RYAN, it is saitt: "Vcstcd
siy':ts, it is conce'oi}, cannot 10 destroyed or
Impaired under such n reserve power, but 1t
ii clenr Tint tho rowor may bo exercised to
ain: 'st any oxtont to cary into effeot the
ori":nal purposes Of tho grant, nu1 TO
r.'sact Tho rights Of tho public mud
tho corrorators, or to promote tho
duo administration Of tho nGaira Of tho cor
roration." III ToMh1Ssow rs. JEssup, Sllo
namo Court observed: "Tho reservation
nTccts tho entire relation between tho stato
md tho corporation, aud places rntler legis-
lative control ali rights, privileges, cn.l ii1a-
m1tiIties derived directly from the State.
Rights acquired by Third parties, and which
have become vested, under tho charter, i'll
tho Legislative exercise Of its powers, stand
upon different footing. Tho
stato does not contend for power to revoke
tho contracts Of tho corporation with other
pa.t;as, or 10 impair any right therein nc
q,1ircd." Iron, tho few extracts 1oro 1nado,
it would sccm certainly TINT tho Supreme
Court inclincs to the doctrine:
I. Tint tho power to nltor is certainly
limited.
=. rlGt It can bo exercised only to carry into
effect Tho original purpose Of tho grant, &C.
enc hs due administration Of tho afEair3 Of
the corporation, md to preserve tho rights Of
stc:::: ao'acrs and CT creditors
Ci;:ef-J1stice SHAW, Of Massachusetts, con-
stI.,inC The sano powor over charters, snyp,
IL GaAY, 2J9 "It seems to us that tho
1'os'o: must have Eon,o limit, though it is
diitic;'!t to define It. Suppose MI authority
ha; tse,l given by law to railrond corpora
ton to purchase Il lot Of land for purposes
connected with Its business; could the Lcgig-
la:nro prohibit tho company from holding
it? # SO, i'll whom should it vest? Or
could tho Legislature direct it to royest III tho
CrsEt>r or eschcat to the public?
tho r':lo to be extracted is this: that where
under power in Il charter, rights hayo
bccn acquired and become vested, no
Anlcn, ,:inent or alteration Of tho char~
ter c:a tako Gway thu property or rights
which layo become vested under Legitimate
exercise Of The powers granted" There arc
numerous other cNscs III which the Courts
have r'fuscd to say what was tho limit Of tho
reserved power 10 alter the charters Of cor
poratiens, but in which they have inti,nated
tAnt taero is sueh limit. There is no de-
oislon. wo believe, except this one Of Chief
Justice RyAS. i'll which it is held that the
right to nltcr is without limit, or with no
otl,cc limit than this; that corporate cherter
OF one kind cannot be altered to charter Of
to!lly tiNorent Lind. Thus, while
previous to that decision there was
much saia by tito most respectable Courts
in tl1e land in favor Of limitation Of tho
reserved power over corporations, tAoro was
nothinE; saitl favoring tho view that tho power
WAS unlimited. Tho views Of Tho Supreme
Court Of tie United Staten in the cases above
named seem to US infinitely preferable to tho
can:rary ones Of Chicz Justice RYAN, and wo
wonder why he lid not adopt them. 1t is
tue that courts nro not tho judges directly of
the rea 'onaIleness of Legislative enactmonts
but they ere tho judges whether such enact
ne1'ts t:cpriyo any person Of life, liberty, or
property, without "duo process Of law"
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will
not allow that tho State can deprive tho
ecTporctors of their "matcrial property"
In ihcir railways; at the ssno tiino il holds
that t!,oy 'nuy be compelled to run their roads
at such rates of faro and freight that they
s..e1l not be nble 10 pay n reasonable interest
OIL tilsir bonded debt. What is this but CIV
hls their creditors tho power to deprive them
Of ti,ci: property by foreclosure or other
wise? What 10 It but mixing their "n,ate-
rial PFC perty" useless? Wo hardly thinl; That
tic opinion in the railway injunction casos in
good law. We cannot conceive how good
INV Gnu bo at variance with pub
lie Policy, private rights, md common
Justice. individuals aud corporations aro
entitled to reasonable compensation for their
services, ind what is reasonable compe,lsa-
Jon il & question which can he answered only
BY experts in railway management. It would
aa1o baen much better for the interests of
:l.o Site Of Wisconsin If its Supreme Court
lad bean guided by tho ,1ttcranccs Of the su-
nrcnle Courts Of tho United States mud of
Massachusetts, and had held tint, while it
vas most salutary measure for the Stato to
reserv, the power to altor, or amend, or re-
peal tie charters Of corporations, it could not
50 tho length Of Eaying TINT such reserved
poTer was without limit.
..e.s...4z.s...~4-~
THE EAT1E gINa sW1HDLE
The exposure Of the wro.ohed swind1e 20 long