Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1880-05-29
OUR CORRESPONDENCE.
COMPANY STORES" AND The
"OURRENT HONEY ACT"

Mr.. Editor They say at Mount
Savage that the law is also illegal
because it interferes with the right of
private contract. This is true If such
a right is always secured or unlimit-
ed. But what law is it that does not
interfere with somebody's private
rights2 If none, we would bs as we'll
off without law. Suppose private
contracts should become so numerous
and Uniform as to be against public
policy, what then2 Parsons says:
Our constitution is not fetter imposed
by the past upon the present and future,
but it inpitcs and propides for change oflaws
to come as j common demand.
quote from memory, but this is
the substance. But, with many other
good things, private contracts are
liable to be misused. If, as general
thing, men cannot get work unless
they deal at certain stores, that is a
use which private contracts were new
er intended for. Suppose Maryland
should enact that after tomorrow the
rate for interest should be five per
cent. Where would the right of pri-
vate contract come in then? How
many people would run to Hagers-
town to have the law set aside, so
they could go on getting six per cent.
on their new investments?
But there is no doubt about the
legality of the Current Money Act,
and it is useless to argue it. As the
landlord is a corporation though, it is
doubtful how the court will construe
the Act. Even Parsons draws this
distinction:
An act of incorporation is charter be-
tween the State and the stockholders. If
charter for bridge declares that no
other bridge shall be built within GER
tain distance, law authorizing ths build
ing of such bridge would be unconstitu-
tional.
We can see how sacred the persons
of stockholders of corporations are
as construed by the courts. Let's see
how an ordinary individual stands to
the State--the biggest corporation
and all of us stockholders. Parsons,
continuing, says:
But an act creating a salaried office il
not such a contract that it cannot be re.
pealsd.
According to the courts the great
mistake made by salaried public Off
cials is that they do not "join cor
poration."
The courts are right in this las1
construction. They are wrong in the
opinion that any act can be passed
which is not subject to revision or re-
peal by the Legislature. Your own
remarks last week, Mr.. Editor, about
the unrepealable powers of a gi-
gantic corporation showed plainly the
necessity of the State reserving to
itself always the privilege of revising
its contracts with its creatures. How
ridiculous that it can revise and
change its own Constitution and not
that of one of its created companies.
Some States have been so careful
about this, yea, SO unwilling in the
last century to give up to the Oonsti-
tuition of the United States-the
highest in the land.
I have gone so far off because l
wanted to show the po'0er State has
had, but not enough now, according te
the courts, to regulate contract be-
tween one of its sovereign citizens
and one of its creations I want to
reply to the argument (lf I can get at
it in any way) that the law is illegal
because it interfsres with private con.
tracts. 1t cannot be, because it doea
not touch individuals as between
individuals, and then it pro-
vides only for the proper erecution
of whatever contract there may be
out between parties. Suppose I give
mortgage on my next months pay
for goods-is the mortgage pay? No;
only the money ratifes the sale Of
goods. What is a sale2 Parsons
says:
sale of goods is the exchange thereof
for money; more particular ly, the transfer
of property in goods from a seller to
buyer, for price paid, or to DO paid, in
money.
It seems payment can be put OF,
but it must be paid in money at last.
II cannot be said that the truck sys-
tenn comes under the law of exchange,
because you can exchange goods for
goods. chattels for ohattels, and was ses
is neither.
- -. ,oodo 10 ha maid