The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-06-30

L
regulate the tolls and charges OF all Rail
roads in this State, 50 a to prevent oppres
SION and unjust dissemination; | shall vott
for the bils. the Governors veto 20 the con
trary Notwithstanding. In doing so, | in
tend no reflection on the Governor | ad
mit. sir that his veto message l. well con
sid-red and sustained by authority, and thai
+ iy is doubtful whether the Courts can sus-
tain the OH if il shall become law IL
the charter Of the Mobile Il Ohio Railroad
Company, approved by the Governor OF thi,
State, on the 18th of February, 1S4S, / find
this provision: And, be 1t further enacted.
That IL shall be lawful for the company
hereby incorporated, from time to time, to
TX. regulate aud receive the toll and charges
by taem t. be received for the transportation
OF persons and property on their Railroad. F"
/ understand that a similar provision is TO
be found IN the charters of all the rail-
roads now being operated in this State. Ii
there were no such provIons in these char
ters, the right and duty of the Legislature
to fix and regulate the charges and tolls of
these railroads 10 a reasonable rate, II deemed
necessary for the public good, would not be
disputed. But, since the decision of the
United States, in the case OF the Trustees
Of Dartmouth College vs.. Woodward, it has
been the prevailing law of this country
that such provisions in the charter of i
private corporation, Is 4 contract within the
meaning OF that clause of the Federal Con-
slltutiOn which declares that no State shall
make any law impairing the obligation of
contracts. La other words, it has been
t3Di8sned since The decision IN that case, by Il
HtQj9rsty OF the Judges OF the Supreme Court
OF the United States and by a mqj0rity of the
Judges Of the supreme Courts OF the States,
that one Legislature of a State by grant
trtt. Ef-l fA IN a TrT rt4
thereby makes contract forever binding
ON the State, and which no subsequent Leg
Isiature, or If you please, Constitutional
Convention OF the State, dodge vs.. Wool
sey, i, How. 33l,) can amend, change, or
annuI without the consent Of the corpora
tions. such seems TO be the law of the
land, 80 far as can be made 50, by a majority
OF Judge, and Courts.
Cooley on Coust. 81 Ed. 279; Dartmouth
College V. Woodward, 1, Wheat. j79 Trus-
tees &c. ". Niucennea Univ. II, How. PCS (;
Planters Bank v. Sharp, 6, 10. SOL; Piqua
Bank vs.. Knoop, 10, Id. 1863; Binghampton
Bridge case, 3, Wall. 81; Wilmington Rail
road Co. ". Reid, IS, Id. 266; Norris VS.,
Trustees of Arlington Academy !, q. and
J. :; Grammar School vs.. Burt, II VT. 362,
Brown vs.. Hammel, q, Penn. Stat. So; State
vs.. Haywood, ,, Rich. 3S9; People vs.. Man
haitian Co. 8, Weud. 35I Conn. VS.. Bullen,
10 Penn. Ste. 1873; Backers vs.. Labanon IL,
\. Ii. 10; Michigan State Bank VS.. Hast
ings. 1, Doug. 225; Bridge Co. vs. Hoboken
,, Bras, 81; Miners Bank vs.. U. =, l,
Green, 553; Edwards vs.. Jagers, 10, Ind,
4U7 State vs.. Noycs, A, Me. 1899; Brufiith
". G.. w. r. X. Co, %, ILL.,, 353 People
vs.. jackson, etc, 9 Mich, 80; Bank, etc,
vs. Bank, etc, 13, Ired 70; Mills vs.. Will
Iiams, | l. Ired., j5S; Walus vs.. StitsOn, ?,
Mass. Il6; Nichols ". Bontram, 3 Pick,
342; King, Us. Dedham Bank ID, Mass.
HI; State " Tombuck bee Bank, 2, Stem,
30; Central Bridge vs. Lowell, IS, Gray,
100; Bank, etc. v. McVeight, 20, Grath.,
I57; Com Bank of Natchez vs.. State, 6,
;. 4 NJ, 599; Grand Gulf r. X. Co. VS..
Buck, %, Miss, 2+6; NJ. & Q. r. r. Co. VS..
Moseley, -, ID. l27.
Bet, Mr.. President, mere precedent alone
Is hot sufficient to establish forever a legal
principle. UnchaugeabIe laws may have
been enough for the Modes and Persians.
But no human tribunal or tribunals are in
f4Ili0le No expression of opinion contra
~ to the merits of the case is conclu sive
and binding authority, except upon those
who have that unbOunded creduhty which
is said 10 be tie attribute of weak minds,
that seldom think reason at all. !,
Greenleaf Ev., Sec. 5. Legal principles,
to be forever settled, must be founded upon
reason and Justice. And, there are some
precepts of natural rights, some questions
of political nature, some questions touch
ing the powers OF legislative bodies which
cannot be finally closed by the decisions of
courts, or superseded by legislative enact
ment
A great, perhaps the greatest, American
judge and law writer has said, and he never
said anything s0under or more Statutory, Il
wish not to be understood, to press too
strongly the doctrine of stare deGjsis, when |
recoliect that there are more than one thous-
and cases to be pointed out in the English
and American books of reports, which have
been overruIed, doubted or limited in their
application. 1t is probable that the records
of many OF the courts in this country are
replete with hasty and crude decisions
and such cases ought TO be examined with
out fear, or revised without reluctance,
rather than have the character of our law
IMPAIRED and the beauty and harmony of
the system, destroyed by the perpetuity of
error Eeea O selieS If decisioas is not Arrays
coHcIusiUe erjdeHce Of 1ebat the iql" IS
kent's Com. Az. And, | recall, Mr.. Presi-
dent, the fact, that President Jackson, on
memorable occasion, felt himself at liberty
to act on his own views of Constitutional
power, in opposition to that previously de-
clared by the Supreme Court of the United
States, and that President Lincoln, in his
inaugural address, expressed similar views
regarding the conclusiveneSs of the bred
Scott decision, upon executive and legisla-
tive action.
Cooley on Const., 3d. n, l. Story on
Coust., 4th edition, sec. 375, \. Lamoris'
Life of Lincoln, go.
Now. sir, while the doctrine that ore
Legislature of a State may, by granting a
charter to private corporation with ex-
elusive privileges and immunties, thereby
making a CONTRACT which forever binds the
State, and which no subsequent legislation
can, under any circumstances, amend, change
or annul, without the consent of the cor
porators, has been fastened upon the coun-
try by the weight of judicial authority, 1T
has not been done without protest, denial
and reSis1aLce Tt has never been contend
ed in this connection, nGf &C intimate that
contracts fairly made by parties e6mpeteEs
To contract, should not be performed and
held inviolate.
But it has been contended, and / contend
that such charter is not a contract and
that no Legislature i'll this country has
authority to make such contracts, Some of
the ablest judges that ever sat on the SUI
preme Bench of the United States. some of
the best legal minds that ever adorned the
history of this country, have utterly denied
and repudiated such pretensions ON the part
of Legislative bodies, and that, too, from
the first time the nOGIrine was asserted to
he present day And / am simpis enough,
sir. to concur, entirely concur, with those
who repudiate the dangerous and monstrous
heresy. In my Judgment, the doctrine
stands upon authority alone, and Is not
supported by reason or justice.
Ii the weight of authority is one way,
the weight of reascis and Justice is the other.
shall support the bill, and any ether pro
per measure that controverts the proposition
that Mississippi has ever made any contracts
with these corporations, by which she is
forever barred and precluded from regula-
ting their conduct and taxing them as she
does other persons and property. Before
can withhold my support from this or any
other similar measure, my mind and con-
science must be satisfied TO a moral certain
ty, and beyond all reasonable doubt, that 1t
is unconstitutional, ! shall be inclined, sir,
TO follow, even forlorn hope, 10 e1tEicate
Mississippi from the bondage of these cor
porations-