The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-07-07

u nent OF IT Dy the Legislature OF Stale
e also clear, the duty of this court is equall
IT plain. But We must be permitted to "a
# that in deciding the first of these nrnnoS
i tions, namely: the validity of the eontrac
+ this court has in our judgment, been, 4
o times, quick to discover a contract that
e might be protected, and slow to perceiy
5 that which are claimed To be contracts yver
r not 50, by reason of a want of authority i
Z those who profess to bind Others This ha
y been especially apparent in regard to con
tracts made by the Legislatures of State,
, and by those municipal bodies TO whom. il
l | a limited measure, some part OF the legiS
f: lative function has been confided Ia al
such eases, when the validity of the con
r tract Is denied the question OF the powe
4 of the legislative body to make It. necessa
= rily arises, for such bodies are bur IN.
: agents and representatives. of the create
; political body-the people-who are beue
fitted or injured by such contracts. wh,
must pay when anything is to be paid, il
such cases. That every contract fairly
made out to be performed is proposition
which lies at the basis of judicial eduea
ton, and Is one of the strong desires Of
every we'll organized judicial mind That
under the influence of this feeling, thu,
court may have failed in some instances t.
examine, with a judgment fully opened Il
the question, into the power OF such agents.
is to be regretted, but the error must be
attributed to one OF those tailings which
lean To virtues side. In our judgment, the
decisions of this court, relied upon here as
conclusive of these cases, belong to the
class Of errors, we have described.
We do not believe that any legislative
body, sitting under State constitution of
the usual character, has right 10 sell, 10
gee, or to bargain array p0tcer-ths tqriHg
p0tcer Of the State. This is power which
In modern political societies Is absolutely
necessary to the continued existence of any
such Society. While, under such forms
of government, the ancient chiefs or heads
of government might carry it on by reven-
ues owned by them personally, by the action
| of personal service from their subjects, no
| civilized government has ever existed that
did not depend upon taxation, in some
form, for the continuance of that exist
ence.
To hold that any one of the annual Leg
islatures can, by contracts, deprive the
State forever of the power of taxation, to
| hold that they can destroy the government
| 10hicA they are appointed to SerVe, and that
| their action IN that regard IS strictly iawfu
| 1t cannot be maintained that this power TO
bargain away, for an unlimited time the
right of taxation, if 1t exists at all, Is linn
tied in reference to the subject of taxation,
In all the discussions of this question,
ip this Court, and elsewhere, such
limitation has been claimed. II tie
Legislature can exempt, in perpetuity,
one piece Of Land, It can exempt all iaRd.
1t it can exempt all land, it can ex
empt all other property. We can as well
exempt persons as corporations. And no
hindrance can be seen in the principle
adopted by the Court, To rich corporations
as Railroads and Express Companies, OF
L iTfr Will
latures as they best may, and with such
appliances as it is known they do use, for
perpetual exemption from all the burdens
of supporting the government The result |
of such principle, under the growing ten |
dency to special and partial legislation, !
would be to exempt the rich from taxation
and cast all the burden Of tie support Of gou- |
erlnae,tt and tie payment Of its debts on tt0se
toho are too poor or too honest to purchase 'ach
immunity.
With a full respect for the authority of |
former decisions as belong from teaching |
and habit to Judges trained in the common
law system of jurisprudence, we think that |
there may be questions touching the power |
of legislative bodies which can neUer be tiadt |
ly closed by the decisions Of a Court and that |
the one we have here considered is of this !
character. We strengthened IN this |
view of the subject by the fact that a Sc |
of our predecessors, shows that 1t haas never
received the full assent of this Court and |
referring to these dissents for more elaborate |
defence of our views, we content ourselves
with thus rcaea0iag the protest agatHst q doc
trine ehich loe think must fnaaybe abandoned.
But in the light of authority, there is
stronger view growing out OF the police
power of the State against the doctrine of
Dartmouth College than [ have presented.
The police power of the States were not
delegated to the General Government and
are retained by the States, and cannot be
assumed by the National Government.
Fertilizing Co. vs.. Hyde Park, 81, U. ;.
667
Rores on Interstate Laws, 227.
Cooley on Const., 574.
L. ;. vs.. Dewitt, 8 Wall, Il.
1t is said to be difficult to define, with
sharp precision, what this power Is.
Railroad VS.. Husen, 50 U. s., 40
But it is certain that it is one of the
sovereign powers of the State-that it Is OF
the very essence of government. 1t was
said by Chief Justice fancy, III the License
Case, How, 5S3 that the police powers of
a State care nothing more or less than the
powers of government inherent in every
sovereignty to govern men and things with
in the limits of its dominion" And this
definition of the power is sustained by the
Cooley on Const., 572-576.
Mume VS.. Illinois, "a L. $, 124-155.
Quoting the language of the Supreme
Court in the leading case of Thorp VS.. Rut-
land and Burlington Railroad Co, q VT,
lag. in delivering the opinion of the Su-
preme Court of the United States in Rail
road vs.. Husen, % U. s, All, Mr.. Justice
Strong said the police power of the State
"extends to the protection of the lives,
H. nd Of of
sons, and the protection of all property
within the State. According to the maxim
sic latere tue est Gttenism non t0edas, which
being of universal application 1t must, oil
course, be within range of legislative action
to define the mode and manner IN which
every one may SO use his own as not to In
jure others. Under this power, persons
and property are subject to all kinds OF re-
straint and burdens, in order TO secure the
general comfort health and property OF the
State; of the perfect rightof the Legislature
to do which, no question ever was, or upon
acknowledged general principles, ever can
be made, SO far national pensions are
Dillon says ':that it is well settled that
laws and regulations of this character,
though they may disturb the enjoyment of
individual rights not unconstitutional,
though no provision is made for compensa-
ton of such disturbance. They do not APP
private property for public use,
but simply regulate its use and enjoyment
BY the owner These regulations rest upon
.he maxim 'fsals.s popult supreaa est Ter" I
Dillon, Nun. Corp, ID edition, sec. 90, {
Vanderbilt VS.. Adams, Cow, 351. s
In the exercise of this power, it has been
leld that State may, as a matter of do /
nestle concern, when necessary for the c
public good, regulate ferries, common
.arriers, haekmen, bakers, millers, war J
fingers, innkeepers, warehousmen, etc,
md in doing 50, fix maximum of charge s.
or service rendered. Mume Illinois, 81 L.
J., 113.
May fix the number of hours in the day {
n week in which person may be employed |
n a particular business. Com. vs. Ham Q
Iton VS.. Mani Co, 120, Mass, 383.