The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1880-01-24


is said by the Supreme Court Ohio that he amers of the
Constitution of the United States could have to include
under the term contract these legislative enactment BY the
contract suppose they meant what at that time the term
understood express 1t after the formation OF
instrument before supposed be
tracts No legal writer had treated them as contracts nor had
they been spoken of way such The decisions which
first declared them the world idea
for the thing Mechanics and Traders Bank vs. DeBol
Ohio Se 602 Story comedies that the preservation of charters
and corporate rights within the contemplation the
trainers of the Constitution when this clause nserted-2
Story Const, Sec 1895
If the trainers of the Constitution did not contemplate and
mean to embrace legislative enactmen of the Con
uon what the rule of construction by which the courts have
brought them within its operation? I?
In every other case the rule of construction has BEEN
the Intention and to Consrue laws and Constitutions accord
ing the intent Of their Const 05-o None
will dispute this,
After Constitution had adopted by the Convention and
before ratified by the States Hamilton Madison and Jay
undertook newspaper articles explain its provisions to the
examined explained and vndcaed in this way by these
great and their work has been preserved in the Fedeas
They do intimate that the trainers OF the Constitution
intended declare establish new rule or principle IN regard
contracts embrace legislative enacments IN that clause
Constitution which nhbs State from passing any law
mparng obligation The clause is mentioned
the Fedeas-Cooley Cont 27I Story says IL
mentioned twice. Story Const Secs 1875 1875 find IT,
mentioned but once and that briefly and generally great
be made in the definition and fundamental law of
contracs scheme of corruption abuse and ensavng free
and the States of their sovereign mowers was proposed
contemplated this clause of the Constitution; the prohibit
on intended be anything than limitation upon the
ordinary powers of government and not the popular ove
prehensve thinkers 1t discovered by the patriots Of that
those hostile and opposed to the ratification OF the Con-
And is under this clause of the Constitution as
in the Dartmouth College that the most enormous
threatening powers in country have been created some
Of the great and wealthy corporations actually having greater Inc
huence the country large and upon the legislation of TIT
country than the States to which they their corporate ex
ence Every privilege granted right conferred matter by
what peence being made nvoabe by the Con
suton frequently found stripped OF its
hory every important Particular by unwse careless or cor
protects pepetuates the eviCooy Const 2T note
Another that iustes the opnon of the Supreme
Court Ohio that the doctrine sis absurd absurd Is
the doctrine as it established does not extend to all char
and not uniform or consistent in its operation. Ii he
trainers Constitution intended to embrace any charter
granted by legislature the term contract seems to me IRE
ssabe that they embrace all charters But settled
by the authorities that establish the doctrine that this is not so
and that the of the Constitution meant to embrace in the
term private but not public corporations
In other words that Legislature may grant charter to pub
municipal corporation deegatng to 1T part the sovereign
power the and that after debts and obligations have been
contracted the faith of such charter may De amended OF
together repealed the Legislature The sovereign power OF the
State thus delegated he withdrawn at pleasure by the Lg
aure the creditors of such corporation are left emedess
and ruined forever but charter be granted to private cor
poraon protected by the Constitution and is forever nvo
late Where the for such discrimination and inconss
encvq And vet this the law has been construed Cooley
Const 1928 Bankey Levee CONS et al, U. s., 2b8;
ouphton vs. Pensacola lb 266; Jones Pensacola 29l II
charters are contracts such as they are claimed the def
nop of contract should be changed about this contract
charter granted by the Legislature of sovereign State with
out authority private corporation, without Consideration CON
can never afterwards under circumstances change mody or
abolish but which the corporation may abandon at It's pleasure
it has generally supposed that of two requisites OF
contract that be mutuatyboth parties must De
bound to perform neither bound Right and Obligation IN
this m in other matters correave terms What are the cor
hound under these charesY What was the oBLGA
o the contract their part? They made no PROMISE thy
were not bound do anything ALL and if they had aed
to build their roads, to do anything how and for what
would they been liable the State and against whom
would she have proceedd2 contract without consideration
. nudum pactura, and void. Nobody will dispute this
These show upon their faces that the corporations p
nothing they did not promise TO do anything was pe'
that they should anything do anyhnghat they shoud
used for benefit Of the State well themsevesha the
ndustdeveop resources OF turn hIher
ward the tide of immigration?
yea they done they likely to DO it. either
themY Has been entire failure Of consideration
their pa The State them the right of through the Stat
the protection of her laws and thus far has eS
empted them taxation and allowed them to fix and reguat
their tolls Value these roads other proert
the has been valued and tax them other property ha
been taxed and how much would the amount TO- since the
have been operaton-how millions Of dollarsf Ant
what will for all time to come? What amount hay
bey realized exorbtan arbitrary and discriminating charge
since they been in opeationhow millions OF dollar
nd what will realize this account for all time to
thew are sovereign the State and
subjected controlled by her awsH And what has
received and what proposed she shall receive for the
y roval bounties, privileges and immuniesI
Has she received she likely receive for them
dor these called contracts much the thirty pieces
silver which Judas sold his Lord and Master? Where is
ptuaty consideration the and Justice Of the
contracts? Can all the decisions OF all the courts
ali the world render them reasonable just equitable to
ope? Supreme Court of the United States to the
three OF its most eminent judges dissenting from
doctnes asserted here in behalf of these raoads Whe
een at times quick discover contract that might be
sd and slow TO perceive that what claimed be
The i'm Wh