Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-02-04

strong language "The Argument is unsound in
this that it supposes (what cannot be admitted as
suppostion) the Legislature will, designediy and
wlfully violate the Constitution in utter gard
OF their oaths and duty. To do indirectly in the
abused exercise Of an acknowledged power, not
given for, but perverted for that purpose, that
which is expressly forbidd to be done directly is
gross and wicked infraction Of the Constitution.
1t is unnecessary, however, TO enlarge upon this,
for the effect wrought upon the contracts OF these
two companies is direct efect-a direct alteration
OF the obligation assumed by the debtors, and not
an incidental result of gislati1n upon some other
subject which Congress has right to legislate.
1t is plain to admit of doubt that the sole OBJ
ject Of the Act of 1875 was to enforce giving new
and additional security for the payment of the sub
sidy bonds at their maturity All its provisions aim
directly at that, and the new terms thereby added
to the contract have that end solely in view.
In further attempted support OF the validity Of the
Act it has been denied that it does change the con-
tract, because it does require the application OF
the additional payments to the satisfaction of the
debt before its maturity. / have, perhaps SAID
enough upon this subject. The argument can hardly
be seriously ma c. The Act does compel the debtors
to surrender pos ession Of their property to the
creditor before the time when, by the terms OF the
contract, they were under obligation 20 part with
it. The debtors no longer permitted to hold
and use one-half the compensation due presently
from the Government for services rendered, and are
no longer at liberty use all their net income or
earnings except five per cent, at their discretion
one-quarter of their net earnings they are COM
PEELED to surrender to the creditor Thus the cred
itor becomes the custodian Of the debtors prop
erty, and acquires right to hold and manage it as
if it his own 1t is absurd to say this is not
practically radical change IN the relations be-
tween the parties established by the contract. And
it is equally impossible to maintain that it is not de-
priving the debtors of their property without due
| process of law.
REPLY TO THE ARGUMENT FOR THE VALIDITY
OF THE ACT.
turn now TO what has been most relied upon in
support OF the validity Of the Act. ] refer TO the
clauses in the Acts Of 1852 and 1864, reservins the
right to repeal, amend, or alter. There are two
such-one in the Act Of 1862, and one in that OF
1864. That in the latter Act is the broadcast, and
is as follows: Congress may at any time alter,
served is one over the Act itself; not over
anything that may have lawfully been done
under the Act before its repeal or al
teratIon. 1t is only by great confusion of
things essentially distinct that his power can be
construed as applicable to a contract made after the
corporation came into existence. Besides, the Act
OF 1878 does not attempt TO repeal, OF alter, or
amend the Acts of 1852 and 1854 1t changes no
franchise granted by those Acts, nor does it inter
fere with its exercise. 1t intereres only with the
fruits of the franchise The right to possess and
enjoy the income of the company is not franchise.
1t is an incident of the ownership of the company's
property, though the pro erty may be accumulated
by the use of the franchise. Concede that Con-
gress has power to regulate the tolls the railroad
or in some other mode to restrict the use Of the
franchise and thus lessen the income, yet the in
come, whether large or small, when made, is the
companys property, and like other property, pro-
tected against being without due process Of law Or
suppose the Acts of 1862 and 1864 were repealed,
and thus all the franchises granted by them were
taken away, the property OF the company would re-
main, and the income thereof, though greatly de-
creased, would be the property of the stock
holders. Nobody denies that. Is the lesser
greater than the whole? l repeat, therefore, the
Act Of 1878 is no exercise Of the rese We
power to alter amend or repeal the Acts OF 1862
and 1854 1t is no attempt to make any such repeal
or amendment. 1t is at most an attempt to seize
the fruits of the franchise after they shall have be
come the vested property of the corporations 1t is
an attempt to sequester the income of the property
owned by them As well might the Government at
tempt to seize and put into its Treasury the rents is
sues and profits OF the lands granted to them by thu
third and fourth sections Of the Act OF 1862, anC
call that an amendment Of the Act. There is NJ
distinction to be made between the profits of thu
roads and telegraph line and the rents OF the lands
None has been attempted.
But if the Act of 1878 could be considered al
iteration or amendment of the Acts OF 1862 and 1861
the question would still remain, What was the ex
tent of the power reserved by those Acts? / mean
the power to alter amend or repeal them. All the
cases agree that such reserved power is not with
out limits. think its limits may be stated gener-
ally thus: 1t must be exercised when exerted at ALL
so to
DO NO INJUSTICE
To those to whom the franchise has been granted.
Certainly the reservation cannot mean right to