Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1883-01-26

which the case rested has been declared un
constitutional, and its passage a transgression
by Congress Of its constitutional powers. The
question in dispute was the power Of Congress
to enact law Furnishing conspiracy to deprive
persons or classes of persons of equal protec-
ton, privileges and immunites under the
laws Of the state The grounds OF the deci.
sion are that the law infrnges upon the re.
served rights of the state that there is moth
ing in the 18th and nth amendments to the
constitution that confers authority upon Con.
gress to enact such law that if Congress
had jurisdiction sufficient to punish private
persons for the commission of one class of
crime in a state, by virtue Of the same author
ity it would have power to legslate as to all
crimes in a state. The civil rights bill, in
Guiding the section just declared unconstitu-
tional, became law May 81, 1870. Many of
its features were included in the original civil
rights bill of March, 1865, which led to the
rupture between President johnson and the
Republican Congress. The bill was vetoed at
the time, and subsequently passed over the
veto and became law. 1t was supplemented
! by the portion of the revised statutes
known by the title of civil rights, now in lit
| igation during the reconstruction legislation
of Grants first term and was aimed in part
against the kuklux and other secret political
associations which threw the South for time
into a state Of lawlessness and armed conflict
1t will be remembered that during the strike
of the freight. handlers in New York city last
July, a large amount of freight estimated at
800, 600 tons, accumulated in that city The
railroad managers gave as a defence for per-
hitting this accumulation of freight, inability
to deliver it because the freight handlers re-
fused to work unless they were paid three
cents an hour more than the wages the com.
pany offered. When this matter was taken
into the courts last summer Judge Haight de-
cided that writ of mandamus, compelling
the railroads to receive and carry merchan-
disc, could not issue The matter went to
the general term, and was passed upon by
Judges Davis, Brady and Daniels, who re-
verse Judge Haights decision, and declare
that in such cases the railroads can be com.
PEELED to take and deliver freight In their
decision the judges referred to take the most
advanced doctrines of the courts relative to
the power of the state over the management
of railroads. Such corporations exist by the
consent of the people through their represent
atives. They do not exist for their own pleas
ure, but, while being profitable to the owners
and managers, to accommodate the public
from whom they have received special favors.
Judge Davis says that the state, by its courts,
can compel a railroad company to operate its
railroad as one continuous line, to build fences
and catte-guards, to run daily trains, and tc
reGstablish abandoned stations, ETC., all OF
which are expressed or implied obligations
arising from charters, but not more than the
duty to carry freight and passengers In 9th
er words, no plea save that of physical ina
bility will serve as a reasonable defence fol
neglect or refusal to perform its part of q
special contract with the state.