The New York herald., 1875-12-11
The Injunction Against the Panama
Railroad Company.
Theatrical Trials and Trib,
ulatiOnS.
THE NEW LEAH IN COURT.
Conviction for Mailing Obscene
Literature.

purchasing Tor That purpose any steamers other
vessels connection with the Panama Railroad either
from New York TO Aspnwall or from Panama 10 San
Francisco The subject was then, as il ls now, OF
special interest TO the railroad company and the result
was a very long and exhaustive argument both
sides the leading points Of which fully published
in the HERALD at the time Judge Donohue having ex-
amined the mass Of papers submitted to his scrutiny
and examined both the statutes and the decisions In
The applicable to the case yesterday his de
sison embodyng the same in lengthy and elaborate
opinion. The following is the opinion
In this the complaint in substance alleges that
the plaintiff is stockhoder in the defendant
pany that the companys officers about charter
buy steamers and engage in the business OF running
steamers between New ork and their railroad depot at
Aspinwall and from their depot at Panama TO San
Francisco The plaintiff further claims that this be-
yond any power given them in their charter and that
they have such right and he asks that they may be
restrained The answer sets up claim OF the right TO
do the complaint charges the defendants doing
this under the charter Of the company and that the
company have used the power under the charter 10 40
similar transportation. One point taken IN the argu
ment of the plaintiff that under act 3, section 10
Of the constitution or this State, 1t is pro-
be passed by the Legislature shah embrace more
than subject and that shall be expressed Ia the
title To this the defendant part that the
complaint is not predeated on the unconsttutlonality
of the act. That il undoubtedly true, but the com
plant is predcated the construction OF the charter,
which confines the power Of the company to merely
the use vessels. passenger and freight lines,
but assistants III the work OF the railroad on the
1sthmus and to carry out its designs and II Is only
when the defendants seek to the words in the char
ter in purchasing and navigating such steamers or said
vessels may be proper or convenient TO be used in
connection with the said road for the purposes
planned Of that the constituuonality of the act,
construed by the defendant is important The con
tesation between the parties is, the plaintiff says
the words as TO s'vesses' in the charter,
which, it is claimed, are confined TO vessels
necessary not in any distant lines of travel but in
aiding the defendants In the of the road they
nsng The defendants say that the words are to
enable il 10 steam lines in connection with the
road The plaintiff contends that II this is so the CON
tutlonal question arises and the charter is void The
papers this have been in my hands but short
time and the pressure OF other duties prevents
tended an examination and discussion of the in
this opinion would desire; but az the question is
OF importance to the parties and early disposition
moro important than extended opinion, shall in
brief space as possible dispose OF IT, II will be seen
that IL Il only in the defendants theory of power
claimed from the charter that the question first stated
arise and to that subject attention must be first d
rected In this Inquiry IS first necessary 10 ask what
the clause in the constitution In question means be
cause il is new one, and one not familiar TO us in
such instruments 1t twould be useful 70 US in such in.
quiry to 20 the discussion OF the convention that
formed he constitution the subject, and TO inquire
what faults Of prior legislation II intended TO reach
by the provision but be ohy shortly stated in sub
stance. II had been found that good measures had
been saddlcd with bad riders. and that bills drawn and
considered by members had intentional additions put
10 them that made bad law and gave power in
tended TO be gwen, and the Legislature by this
provision 70 be compelled to lcgisate only sub
ect at time and put that in the title that the evil
title would have their attcntiea called what they
legisa,ing As curious instance of the class
Of legislation spoken or very striking instances
may be found in the federal laws The law that to-day
prevents hugging in the national mercantile service
passed proyiso 10 one clause in appropria-
on bill and one OF the acts extending the laws OF the
State 10 the admssibilIly OF testimony in federal
courts was attached to reconstruction provi-
sons. Whatever may have been the disadvantage
Of this kind OF legislation In particular
instances in this State least ii had succeeded in
passing bad laws and the Legislature to be curbed
TtXI Afb md tgpT4t EtTCf
but subject 10 be included in act, and.
ond, it should be stated in the BILL Now, this
case, constituting the power as the defendants do is
their action constitutional? The only cases cited
by the defendant on this point are People McCan
ne N.Y. 6i in which the Court says the character oft
tthe act Is to be determined by its provisions not its
title II this meant that you could pass TO
lievc John smith, and on 1t grant donation TO the
Blind Asylum, no VIII pretend that ii is correct
because the words OF the constitution that the subject
shall be embraced IN the title, would be literally ig
nored although quite as important as the rest of tho
provision, but applied to that the expression
used by tho Court Is highly proper. The reasoning in
that case SIMPLY meant TO tnc effect that general pro-
visions TO general laws about which there
suicton IN the constitution were not VOID u contained
IN local act Here that question does not arise. In
Conner W The Mayor 10 n Y, 2s2-s3 the
Court held that many persons or things
may be embraced within the same subject
but the Court expressly held that the object OF tho pro-
vision 70 prevent the uniting OF various subjects
having necessary connection with each other. for
the purpose Of combining those interests IN support OF
the whole Without stopping 10 inquire whether this
act does not condemnation Ia their words IL
" only necessary to say that that case emphatcaly
condemns the uniting Of more than subject matter
In addition to those cases, this clause has been dis
cussei A. an early day after IL passage In the mat
ter uf Walker 3 Barb, 1872 the title of act ia re-
latlon 10 certain courts IN the city OF New YORK was
held Constitutional because its title covered the sui je
contained n II, clearly showing that al that early at
when the provision fresh the title looked to as
Of as much Importance as the act In the case OF
hosier vs. H.lbor rs Barb Coz the title OF the act
Is again held TO be important and that act
was only upheld because its tile covered the
he iaf nf
creditors II 10 that under the provisions OF
that act there was nothing IN Inconsistent with such
relief In The Town of Fishkti IS. Fshkll. &C. the
title Of the act again, held necessary cover the
subject In The and that in that al the provs
were Of character be covered by the title In
DcCtmp vs OYerseers Of the Poor l9 Barb 81 1t
10 mo the various subjects embraced the
all necessarily embraced in an act to erect the
Court House Or Schuyler county all the subjects treated
of were to carry out and complete It's erection al.
though well reasoned dissenting opinion in that
did not agree TO the Judgment. In Conner VS. Tho
Mayor. already referred TO, the title OF the bill was,
An act In Relation To Fees which provided that fees
should belong the county and salaries 70 be paid in
place OF them within the scope Of the title In
Brewster The City Of Syracuse 19 y. r., 1l9) the
title of the act again treated as Of the same i'm
portancc as the act, and that the title ex-
pressed the subject, and that brings US 20 the
question, What is the subject matter OF the
act If the plaintiff in his construction Of
H. Is correct, then il Is clear that II contains only
one subject matter II charters railroad and gives
that road the power TO charter &C. such steamboats,
Be may bc necessary for that road II its charter MS
70 run steamers all over the world then IL seems to me
no ono VIII say there is but subject matter in It,
and that subject Is expressed IN the title II the
ttrucon OF the intent or the act contendcd for by the
defendant Is correct II is hardly necessary 10 cite
thortcs to show that the directors may establish lines
with Europe and all parts Of IT, Africa and
al parts Of H. Asia and all parts Of IL.
This d the clear result Of defendants construction,
and ! might ask Is there stockbolder in the
company that would hko 10 have his property
Invested IN that company subject TO the power
of me directors tor the time being establish any line
auu 10
IN the argument that ni tins time tho company only
going 10 run line TO New York and San francisco
Ihat Is only question Of the present II the power
exists ~ claimed there Is no place that this company
has not authority under ls charter To line TO- II
viii be seen that unless the restricted Of the words
contained IA the charter shown bad boen adhered 10
when this company was chartered tho legislation
have for all future time ceased to charter other
steam lines The subject in the constitution had IN.
tcrest and certainly did mean that in an act to
charter railroad company the Legislature could add
nm Insurance company or savings bank. II will be
that the provisions Or tho act arc not
90 charter, nor does II profess 10 charter
a steamship company. IL charters tho pan.