Sacramento daily record-union., 1882-12-21

for apprehension on this head is obvious to
| all who have followed the course of leeis.
lation and judicial Interpretation with re.
gard to railroad questions during the past
ten years. Mr.. Hewitt objects to Robe.
i sons amendment that it is "a proposition
"to Insert into the charters of these com.
"panies conditions subsequent" This is
perfectly true, but unfortunately it is not
the first time it has been done. TIE Tnur.
man Act was an unquestionable violation of
the contract ratified between the United
States Government and the Pacific rail-
ways, and in upholding the constitutional.
sy of that legislation the Supreme Court ad-
vanced the dangerous principles laid down
first in the Chicago Elevator cases, very
considerably.
The question of the limits of Congress
sional interference with these contracts is
no doubt very difficult ore. 1t appears
| inevitable on the face Of the situation that
the State must reserve to itself the right of
Alternative action on the part of the people |;
but the closer the case is looked into the
more impossible does it appear to hold the
exercise of this supremacy within equitable
| bounds. In theory contract entered into
| between the State and corporation Ger.
tainly ought to be as binding and as per-
manent as a contract between two citizens.
In both cases the essential principles
and motives and considerations are identi-
cal, and it is as necessary to the well l.being
of the State that it should keep its pledges
as that the same should be done by indi-
viduals. But when legislative body is
invested with the power to alter, amend
or repeal charter, and when it is always
possible that the said body may be sub
Ajected to powerful pressure by public
sopinion, either ill-inforr1ed or directed BY
studied malice, it follows that great insta.
biiity in all such contracts must exist, and
that the weaker parties can never be secure
in tie possession of the rights guaranteed
to them. Ard though the right to alter,
amend, or repeal may be conditioned upon
a proper recognition and conservation of
corporate rights, recent decisions of the
Supreme Court have really go far removed
all responsibility from legislative bodies in
these cases that, under the influence of
passion and prejudice, they may at any
time decree changes which will not only
eliminate all value from the contract, but
feause the destruction Of valuable property.
/ When a legislative body is told that it
has the right to make any changes it
pleases in the charter of rail- oad corpo.
ration, it is very apt to construe the vague
accompanying condition regarding respect
for corporate rights, to suit itself. Legis.
lators are dependent for their positions
upon popular favor, and if they know that
hostile legislation against railroads is pop
ular they are very likely to ignore the
rights of the companies in order to improve
their own records. And when, aa is the
case with the Pacific railroads, public
opinion has been educated to forget all the
obligations entered into by the United
States, and in fact to regard the whole
matter precisely as though the corporations
had never rendered any equivalent for
Cove rnment assistance, and as though the
Government had never undertaken to do
certain things for and in consideration of
the performance OF other things by the
| companies, it is to be apprehended that
Congress may be tempted to take the
common and altogether erroneous view of
the situation, and so commit great wrongs,
Sooner or later, and the sooner the better,
it will become absolutely necessary for the
people of the United States to realize that
when they make contracts through their
agents they must adhere to them honor.
ably, and not take advantage of their SOW.
ereignty to confiscate private property
under any pretense whatever. For unless
this realization is reached it is already
plain that the Legislatures and the Courts
will drift every year nearer to the COM
munism limited at by Mr.. Hewitt, while
every fresh invasion of private rights
will tend to facilitate and encourage fur.
ther injustice.
The people, of course can do what they
please, SO far as the mere exercise of force
Is concerned. There is no power able to
cope with them, or at all disposed to try.
Bat with all their sovereign power they
cannot make wrong right, nor can they
preventive commission of injustice from pro.
ducing deleterious consequences. Nor is
this question one which concerns railways
alone. 1t is of far wider scope. Ii goes
to the very marrow of national policy and
national honor. 1t involves the question of
finance, of the currency, of commerce. It
is the question whether the people can be
warranted in employing their sovereignty
to evade their obligations. Il is idle to
pretend that there is no danger in this
connection, for there has always been dis.
tinct and powerful element In the commu.
nifty favorable to precisely this dishonest line
of policy. The experience of tie country in
resisting Reputation is an illustration very
much to the point, and the same element
which then and for SO long stood up
against honorable financial action NAV be