The Grange advance., 1874-05-13

tnoe taken. xne now raw makes no NM
vision whereby such compensation can be
sscertained, nor does it provide in the
event Of such compensation being sscer-
tanned, in what manner it shall be paid.
The conclusion is inevitable tha:, on this
second ground, . court Of competent juris-
1diction, would declare the law to be uncon-
Fstitutional, and not coming within the
powers reserved to the States. .s.~
A THIRD POINT.
The opinion, after celebrating these two
points, proceeds to state third, which Mr..
Curtis considers Of great gravity. Again
quoting authorities in support Of his views
he submits, as his opinion, the following
general proposition, applying directly to
the case as submitted to him for considers
tion. Mr.. Curtis says: If the effect of the
law when enforced and put into practical
operation, shall be to reduce the earnings
of railroad corporations owning and operat-
ing lines in the State, under general char
ters, to such point as to render it impos-
sible for them to pay interest on the bonds
issued by them as corporations, the result
would be on the part of such companies q
violation of their contracts with their bond
holders. While a State may, under certain
contingencies, violate its contract with
railroad corporation, it is beyond the right
Of State to interfere by any enactment, or
exercise Of power on the part of its execu-
tive or legislative officers, with a contract
made by a railway company, with third
party, always provided that the contract
with the third party is within the powers
Of such corporation, as guaranteed by pre-
vious legislation, either at it's organization
or subsequent thereto. If the present law,
by its operation, would in such way
affect the earnings Of the railroad corpora
tions Of the State of Wisconsin as to destroy
their ability to fulfil the obligations they
have assumed, under warrant Of previous
laws, which is q matter Of proof, it must be
held to be unconstitutional and void.
The opinion, in
ITS CLOSING SUMMARY
OF the case gives it as the opinion of MIR.
Curtis that the new railroad law is uncon-
stitutional.
HON. MR.. EvARTs APPROACHES THE
with that earnestness and gravity BETTING
its importance. He recites, in the opening
OF his statement, the main points of the
law, and the several questions that neces-
sarily arise from the enactment. The mat
ter on which he is asked to pass, whether
such legislation as class, and in this par
tlcular case, is within the purview of state
governments, and is not altogether beyond
the constitutional powers of any State ex-
ecutive to enforce, he characterizes as one
of vast Importance.
Leaving the broad question of constitu-
tionality, Mr.. Evarts proceeds to discuss
in detail
THE SEVERAL PROPOSITIONS CONTAINED IN
THE LAW.
Upon each, he passes an opinion, in
every case supporting it with weighty au-
thorities. In aontradistinction to Mr. Cur
tis, whose opinion is confined to the more
general treatment of the whole question in
Volved, MIR. Evarts passes in review the
minor points that arise from considera-
tion OF the provisions of the bill, and the
character Of the machinery by which it is
proposed to carry it into operation. The
ability of State legislature to define arbi-
trarily the sum which shall be charged for
the performance of certain work, of the
nature and description Of common car
rier, is debated; and several pertinent quo
tations are given thereto.
Summing up, at the close of his consider
alton of the minor points, Mr.. Evarts m.
nOunces
HIS CONCLUSION
uron careful weighing of the whole mat
ter to be: That the State Legislature of
Wisconsin, in passing the law commonly
known as the railroad law, exceeded the
powers residing in it; that the powers re-
served to the States, under the National
Constitution, do not cover the exercise of
such authority on the part Of the States
and that the law is not a proper exercise Of
thes powers reserved to the States, in con-
nection with the repeal or amendment of
charters
MIR. Evarts closes his argument by giving
1t as his opinion that the law, coming under
the ban of these grand principles, cannot
be regarded as Constitutional