The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1880-01-16
VETO OF THE RAILROAD BILL
THE GOVERNORS VETO MESSAGE.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
JACKSON, Miss, Jan. Z, 1880.

mated In the Senate, February 9th, 1878,
passed the House of Representatives, Feb |
ruary 9th, and was delivered at the Exec
ecutiye office on the Attn Of March, Just thir-
ty-six hours before the final adjournment |
of the Legislature. II was source Of re- |
gret that, amid the stress of business during |
the closing hours Of the session, no time was |
afforded in which 10 prepare and submit TO |
your predecessors a written message em-
bracing the reasons which controlled my
action In Withholding from II my official
signature, Anticipating the difficulties
here mentioned, and in order that the power
vested in the Executive by the Constitu-
ton might be preserved unmpaired, the
trainers Of that instrument incorporated in
tia provision allowing five days for the con
sideraton Of any measure submitted by the
Legislature for approval, unless prevented
By the adjournment Of that body; and in
that event that it should become law
unless returned within three days after It's
next meeting. In conformity with this
requirement, | have the honor herewith 10
return, without my approval, Senate Bill
No. $50, entitled "An act in relation to
excessive charges and unjust discrimination
| by railroad companies IN this State"
| 1t is unnecessary TO direct your attention
10 the crude and imperfect features Of the
| BILL and the abundant facilities created by
its own terms for defeating It's provisions.
| IL Is not this upon which my chief objec-
ton rests but object to it because it is, in
my judgment, n palpabe violation of
plain provision Of the Constitution Of the
! United States and Of the State of Missis.
| sipp, which declares that no law shall be
passed impairing the. obligations Of contracts
| As this provision Of our State and Federal
| Constitutions admits of but a single con-
struction, il Is only necessary to present
such argument as will show conclusiyely
that the rights and powers conferred upon
a corporation by its charter are contracts
between the State whose Legislature grant
cd the charter, and the corporation accept
ing it; that certain rights were conferred
upon every corporation operating Il railroad
in this state by its charter; and that the
effect Of this legislation Is 10 diycst them OF
those rights, To accomplish this ! submit
Il few legal and judicial authorities, and
contrast them with the provisions Of tho
bill under consideration and those Of tn,
various railroad charters in tn,
state. The parties in support of the prin
c.ple here maintained are numerous but
have sought in vain for single decision il
any Of the books holding n contrary view
on the subject
, Judge Cooley, in his work ON Constitu
tional Legislation, in discussing acts Of in
corporation generally, on page 279 thirC
edition, says CHOSE charters of corpora
tons, however, which are granted, not ~
a part of the government, but for the pri.
vatc benefit or purposes Of the corporators
stand on different footing, and are held to
be cOntruts between the legislature and the
corporators, having for their consideration
the liabilities and duties which the Corpo
J tors assume by accepting them; and the
grant Of the franchise can no more be re-
sumed by the Legislature or its benefits di
minshcd or impaired, without the consent
of the grantees, than any other grant OF
= property or valuable thing, unless the right
TO do so is reserved in the charter itself"
Judge Cooley is generally accepted as good
authority, and this would seem to be con
elusive; but the following decisions of our
supreme Courts are cited in support of this
doctrine.
The High Court of Errors and Appeals of
this State, in the case of Payne VS.. Bald
win, Chief Justice Sharkey delivering the
opinion of the court, decided that bank
charter is contract within the meaning of
the term used in the Constitution The
courts says Legislation which impairs
chartered rights is not only ut war with the
Constitution of the United States, but is
repugnant to similar provision of our
State Constitution, and on that account
would be imperative" 3 :. Il NJ, go,
In the case of the New Orleans, Jackson
and Great Northern Railroad Company vs..
Harris, the court makes use Of the follow
ing language: "a charter is contract
within the meaning of the Constitution of
the United States, between the State grant
ing the charter and the corporation itself,
the obligation of which is not within the
power of the Legislature to impair" 3 g.,
537 at must be conceded" says the
court, "that the Legislature has no Consti-
tutional power, unless reserved in the
grant, to change OF alter, without consent,
an act of Incorporation and thereby to cast
upon them additional obligations, or take
from them rights guaranteed by their char
ter" H., $50
1t was held Ivy our present Supreme
Court, in the case of the Mobile and Ohio
Railroad Company vs. Mosely, that exemp-
ton from taxation contained in the charter
of corporation organized under it is in
violabe. Mr., Justice Chalmers, in deliver
ing the opinion of the court says: THAT
such exemption from taxation contained in
{ the charter of a corporation organized I'M
der it is irrepealable and inviolable, is too
we'll settled to need elnridaton or citation
of authority. No principle has been more
repeatedly or more violently assailed; none
have more successfully withstood the shock
of every assault
A single case from the Supreme Court OF
the United States will, | think, settle the
question without the necessity of citing ad-
ditional authority, In the case of the Chi
cago Burlington and Quincy Railroad
Company VS. Iowa-one of the famous
Granger cases-the court, quoting from the
charter of the corporation, and hold
ing that the company was, TO certain
extent, protected by contract says:
For IL is now too late to contend that
the charter of a corporation is not con-
tract within the meaning Of that clause of
the Constitution Of the United States which
prohibits State from passing any law inn
pairing the obligation OF contract What
ever granted is secured, subject only to the
limitations and restrictions in the charter
or in the laws or constitutions which gov
ern it, Otto, 1855.
twill not be contended that the power
to regulate IFS own fare and freightS is not
90 q. IL 1 So