New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-03-21

OF Of the judges Of that court Let TO the
latter first refer to that litigation which sprape
NO un0er the special act In reference To the Credit Mo
Mr. Jnsae Hunt IN the ease II The United States against
The Union Pacific Railroad Company and others. The
report which have is contained in the eighth volume of
the American Law Review, page $50. Ia this case Mt
ton arises Of action in the United states Tor
@ us h fs se sa 70 Sy an nor a n
CSGg,ess may w, aataoI1e ts
wrongs which legally TO the United
cause acts 10 be wrongs United states are
their nature wongs TO another The United states cannot
non is authority nor maintain action IN IT'S
Moneys recovered by The United States IN such an action
like It's other funds VIII go into its snsra TTeas ana from
10 any individual has committed breach OF Ist or been
Union pseae Raraad COMPANY The cause Of action and 70
damages themselves when belong the corpora
S e suit for s%f sdre's gs be In aS T MINER 81 o
nary other party be such painnG and
a' sG sc Il he lie
10 snoih"r 70 gave eec TO such an at would be spss
one % ms pSTe without que FRO n redress al
legged injuries N other words it, 10 resnlaie The con
not under the regulating remedy, impair con
tracts Or dispose Of rights Of cannot Sn i,y s a
Judgment give authority for their ooIec siats
GSic I RS1 11 iS4s Es scns sS paSs $780, &c.
The statute which there declared by that judge to
be unconstitutional passed under just such an ar
gen as that made for the passage Of the present BILL
II done for the purposc OF promoting rhe general
stockholders aud the creditors OF advancing the public
involved In tho Srin a GRAFTON a,. oil tGe fppG
have the appeal remains yet to he seen But II the
Uni ed states has already decided be consistently
applied there b. but answer TO the question,
show. If cam believe that from the decision
the Supreme Court Of the United States as rendered
by very learned and distinguished justice then ON tho
bench. who day before yesterday argued the other
way that the very exertion OF authority proposed TO
hin aud Tho nXn
OF the United States against the Union Pacific
Company IN OTTO r. want first 10 cal the at-
which that suit brought the Act Of March g. 1873.
The second section of that statute provides:
That the Secretary Of the Treasury directed 10 withhold
all payments railroad company and its assigns on ae.
count Of reghis or tTsnoriaic over thor I'VE
United stale interest bonds Of the United states
ieinSused together With the PER due
Ms S bpn suit IN the COURT Of Claims TO the price
such freight and Transportation and ia snc sui M tsh OF
Of The shal be determined AMI also the rights Of The
il IN answer them e,%r parry .eh sSii nsy
appeal Ia the supreme Court ana both sand courts shai give
such precedence of all other business
RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO REPEAL AND AMEND. D.
Now, mark H. the claim made that the Congress of
the United States either by virtue of general princi-
pie by virtue Of special sprcihc reservation OF
power. had authority To compel the companies To pay
into the hands Of the of the Treasury money
money not due y the original Aeis cf le62 and 1861
BY those acts ONLY one-half OF the amount aocfuE on
o Government transportation could he retained
by the Governments hut the gentlemen argue TINT ine
Government require the companies 10 pay all. aud
that Is what they do require hy this hl aud thai what
required by this Act OF March g. 1873. expressly.
specifically 1t be retained by the Secretary Of The
Treasury, the object being Ia apply 4 on account o the
interest paid by the Government on It's bonds advanced
10 thc companies.
The argument was that the Congress OF the United
stalcs had authority to do that thing IL il argued here
to-day AID II bill to require TIE conpauir- I" 40 Iha :
pending here not differing In principle, not differing
IN Meet one one whit from thiS Act OF March
;ary OF the Treasury Should Withhold. not hnf
the original act contemplated bnt an 81 the payments
otherwise due on account oI itiGht on uusi" tau"n
ard In ordcr the question whether the Govern
meni had liglt To 40 mat thins the colnHhe. were
IN the snit the very right of th' matter Ia be-
adudged the merits OF every point upon the law ana
the facts and this Act OF March g. 1873. part Of the
law az The ease. That Naf hhghicd through tEr court
Of Claims That court adudecd against te claim Of the
Gov nneni II was hppea.ed 10 me supreme Donit 81
the United states IL wac argued ti"ie on ne u0uhIs,
aud lS6i every time the Government made an advance
account OF interest there arose an Obligation on the
ncieupon "A debt dic ins;lner. and that he,us
80 the Government had. ~ the cAerci'c 81 lie Ordinary
right, to IccOup and OF uui coming from u
She other party. withhold neD aud TO ta cH
tent Aling-h thc .poiing obj aud debt
SECOND il wa argued that n rha, right not
cured 20 th- Government by original Ac.s of 1852
and SCI Vel because b., thnec acts Congress had
served itself the rsht to alter. amend. or repeal
acts and becau-e by thc Act of March .. lHIJ 10
had modified them u had .cd them Nv concerning
the secretary OF the Treasury the express authority
aud power ana gwen hIn ~ >" many words ihe "CIh
direction Ia Withhold these plt neue II bot iawi9I ne
this Withholding had thereby brcUin@ lawful aud
consequently the court must aDuoEe ia FAVOR oI the
Government
tOu by proving. IRON iic cr,umrl "i ~" tu" ~"
nature OF ne eniefpt'c and t-c language ot TIE Ih"
that u rot the Intention on the pT 81 Congress IA
The Acts OF 1867 and >6l 20 create ~ against the cor
pOTaions dcDt .oI the repay mrnt oi TIC err ei inter
est Until the maturity OF TIE principal sum named IN nc
bond and then her answer 80 the argument of The
ey-GenclM on the otaer point vas rms; read
IRON page 81;
Ano,r get was aubsequenty passed by yl.ue q vich
III suit Wac instituted n ne apr~'cr Ac % sAie = 80
psas that portion The charter The company which
pnrpose w5s very tinremi Although directs sc.rttary
Of the Treasury t. withhold al payments :" m coians ca
account II freight ana l"islo o' u AZ ne 'a,Ar w"
nnhorzcs any .ompny tans affected 10 bring sl IN me
s a , law and ih fcts r.ai nc de-. ern,n ana as 90.
pTesu, b{ i u answer thereto ny tn,r ~. n'aa i'l
,.c Gae ~hrsh, ,h,s @ qi , 'd;y ,.
Of What ey earned ~ Transportation; aud this question !. to
The merits Il question when the
Of The ehaier a. anG & - nara n.,S
IL oould bee mantained-l Cno 81.
Ihat the answer and Jc sole answer, made by the
this argument OF tuc Attorney Gen raj. That
u.s. IL substance t.at II io' nDt nLte th"t .DhErs,s
amend or alter the PROVISIONS OF the 'rigna Acts of
sary implicatlOnl whether Congress formed the OK
press ptiOu IN IT, uund of mkiug formal amend
Icnt 10 The original charter contained n the Acts OF
1SG2 and 1861, il absolutely certain that what Con-
grcss did Ia Tire Act OF 1873 10 MAKE legal. !aT
by 1r Secretary Of ihc Tr~a1Wry OF fund, Which,
the original act, would nave belonged 10 Tie company.
Mr. Noar-Wn iLc Senator from ONO allow me 10
make siatcnent drew the Act OF 1913 to which be
refers, although did not draw he particular clause
when lie Is discussing, which put ~ 10y sen
ate amendment but am very 'aniilar with =, lntory
Nothing ccrinin than that Congress ia not A.
tend, VIII appear from the debates from the Who'll"
purpose II the committee that bad tie subject ~ charge
affect the cI-i the nights ui the Pacific Railroad
CompADs in reference To tins qucston. whether tEcy
were hound 10 pay over The Interest promptly or AZ me
end Oi he thirty years hut ON the contrary the lrOvls-
OF The Act OF March, 1873, simple mode q" riis-
ing the question The secretary OF Tie IIea siiry mad
been by The previous Act ~ lSTl ordered 10 tblr
over, ycidng the companies construction. IL was
claimed tnat that act lad been obtained by improper
L.. 49,, NJ y iIIIanA