The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-01-21
VETO OF THE RAILROAD BILL
THE GOVERNORS VETO MESSAGE.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
JACKSON. Mss. Ian. Z 1850
To the Senate /:


To the Senate
GFNTLEMEN-SenateB Bill No. 100, orig
mated in the Senate, February 9Th, 1873,
passed the House of Representatives, Feb
ruary 2Sth, and was delivered at the Exec
ecutive Office on the 4th of March, just thir-
ty-six hours before the final adjournment
of the Legislature. 1t was a source of re-
greet that, amid the stress of business during
the closing hours ofthe session, no time was
afforded in which to prepare and submit to
your predecessors a written message en-
bracing the reasons which controlled my
action in Withholding from it my official
signature. Anticipating the difficulties
here mentioned, aud in order that the power
vested in the Executive by the Constitu-
ton might be preserved unimpaired, the
trainers of that instrument incorporated in
tia provision allowing five days for the con-
sideratiOn OF any measure submitted by che
Legislature for approval, unless prevented
By the adjournment of that body; and in
that event that it should become a law
unless returned within three days after its
next meeting. in conformity with this
requirement, | have the honor herewith to
return, without my approval, Senate Bill
No. 100, entitled can act in relation to
excessive charges and unjust discrimination
by railroad companies in this State"
1t is unnecessary to direct YOUR attention
TO the crude and imperfect features of the
bill, and the abundant facilities created by
its own terms for defeating its provisions,
1t Is not this upon which my chief ubjeo-
ton rests; but object to it because it is, in
my judgment, a palpable violation of a
plain provision of the Constitution of. the
United States and of the State of Missis-
sippi 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 single con-
struction, it is only necessary to present
such argument as will show coasiusiVely
that the rights and powers conferred upon
a corporation by its charter are contracts
between the State whose Legislature grant
ed the charter, and the corporation accept
ing it; that certain rights were conferred
upon every cozpoTation operating a railroad
in this state by its charter; and that the
effect of this legislation is to divest them OF
those rights. To accomplish this submit
few legal and judicial authorities, and
contrast them with the provisions of the
bill under consideration, and those of the
various railroad charters in the
State. The parties in support Of The pTin-
c:ple here maintained are numerous, but l
have sought in vain for a single decision in
any of the books holding a contrary view
On the suUJecS
Judge Cooley, in his work ON 0nnstitu-
tional Legislation, in discussing acts of in
corporation generally, on page 279, third
edition, says: ssThose charters of corpora
tions, however, which are granted, not as
part of the government, but for the pri-
vate benefit or purposes of the corporators,
stand on different footing, and are held to
be contrats between the legislature and the
corporators, having for their consideration
the liabilities and duties which the corpo-
tors assume by accepting them; and the
grant of the franchise can no more be re-
stunned by the Legislature, or its benefits di-
minished 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 ". Bald
win, Chief Justice Sharkey delivering the
opinion of the court, decided that bank
charter ID contract within the meaning d