The Aberdeen examiner. [volume] (Aberdeen, Miss.) 1866-current, 1884-05-22

late is the power to govern; to prescribe
the rules by which commerce shall be
conducted; to declare when it shall be
burdened with conditions and when it
shall be free and untrammelled."
Therefore, under the definition of JUS
tioe Field, the Mobile and Ohio Railroad
Company has the power to govern; 20
prescribe tho rules by which the COM
meree transported over its line or way
shall be conducted; to declare when it
shall be burdened with conditions, and
therefore the conditions of the burden,
and when it shall be free and untram-
m sled.
Section of the act Of March 18th 1884,
attempts to deprive this company of
regulating, or, in other words, the power
to govern;to prescribe the rules by which
commerce shall be conducted over its
line; to declare when it shall be burdened
with conditions. and when it shall be
free and untrammelled.
Because section l declares THAT any
person or corporation who for his or its
advantage, or for the advantage of any
connecting line. or for any person or
locality shall make any discrimination
against any individual, locality or corpo-
ration shall be guilty Of extortion."
Section 6 also confers power upon the
Commissioners to deprive the Company
from exercising the right to regulate
commerce conducted over its line of rail-
road.
The question, therefore. is reduced to
this:
Is the charter granted by the Legisla-
tlire Of the State of Mississippi. approved
February 18th, 1913, contract which
binds the State by its termsf We answer
unhesltatingly that it is valid, binding,
subsisting contract. and will attempt to
demon strate il by the authorities,
In the case of the Binghampton Bridge
Company, 8 Wallace. page 70, Justice
Davis said: THE constitutional right of
one Legislature to grant corporate privi-
leges and franchises, so as to bind and
conclude succeeding one, has been de-
MED. We have supposed il anything
was settled by an unbroken course of
decisions in the Federal and State Courts,
it was. that an act of incorporation was
contract between the State aud the
Stockholders
"All courts at this day are estopped
from questioning the doctrine. The Sc
curity of property rests upon it, and
every successful enterprise is undertake
ell in the mistaken belief that it will
never be forsaken."
"A departure from it now would in
-olve dangers to society that cannot he
foreseen, would shock the sense OF JUS
tice of the country, unhinge its business
interests, and weaken, il not destroy,
that respect which has always been felt
for the judicial department of the Gov
ernment."
IAN attempt even to reafIirm it conld
only tend to lessen its force and obliga-
tion."
at received its ablest exposition in the
case Of Dartmouth College vs.. WOODWARD
which case has ever since been consider
ed II landmark by the profession. and no
court has since questioned the doctrine.
that the charters of private corporations
are contracts protected from invasion by
the Constitution of the United States,
aud it has since so often received the
solemn sanction of this court, that il
would unnecessarily lengthen this
opinion to refere to the cases, or even
enumerate them.
1.-The purposes to be attained are gen
orally beyond the ability of individual
enterprise, and can only be accomplish
ed through the aid of associat ed wealth.
''This will not be risked unless privi-
leges are given and securities furnished
in an act of incorporation"
1.-The wants of the public are often 80
imperitive that duty is imposed on the
Government to provide for them; and las
experience has proved that a State
should not directly attempt to do this,
it is necessary TO confer on Others the
faculty of doing what the sovereign
power is unwilling to undertake."
THE Legislature, therefore, says to
philosophical citizens"
If you will embark with your time,
money, and skill III an enterprise which
will accommodate the pubic necessities
we will grant to you for limited period,
or in perpetuity, privileges that will
justify the expenditure of your money,
and tue employment of your time and
skill
"Such grant is a contract, with mu-
tual considerations, aud justice and good
policy alike require that the protection
of the law should be assured to it,"
This is exactly what the Legislature
of Mississippi said to this Railroad Com
pany, and the people who Invested their
money IN its securities, which enabled IL
TO construct and complete this great
National highway.
1t said that the citizens Of this State
are without the means of transportation
have no connection with the CONNER
cial centers, and they are not possessed
with the means to provide such trails-
portation; the enterprise will require the
investment of large sum of money, and
will be attended with great financial risk
and hazard, Gas subsequent history has
proven to b fact.) Now, if you will
associate your wealth ana yourselves
into corporation and build this line of
railroad as proposed, we will give you
absolutely and unqualifiedly the right to
fix and regulate the tolls and charges to
be received from time to time for the
transportation OF persons or property
over your line of railroad or upon any
part thereof until your charter expires.
We call especial atten ton to the case of
Miller VS.. the State, Is Wallace; page
1888. Justice Clifford, who delivered the
opinion of the court, said:
corporate franchises. granted to pri-
vate corporations, il duly accepted by
the corporators, partake Of the nature Of
legal estates. and the grant, under such
circumstances, il 1t be absolute in its
terms, and without any condition or re-
servation. imparLing different intent,
becomes Il contract within the protec-
ton of that clause of the constitution
which ordaips that no State shall pass
any law impairing the obligations of
contracts. Charters Of private corpora
tons are regarded us executed contracts
between the State and the corporators,
and the rule is well settled that the Leg
islature, if the. charter does not contain
any reservation or other provision mOdi-
tract, cannot repeal, impair. or alter
such charter against tho consent or
without the default OF the corporation
judicially ascertained and declared.
Subsequent legislation. altering or modi-
flying such a charter, where there ID no
such reservation, is ,ainly unauthorized
if it is prejudicial to the rights of the
cOrporatOrs."
In the case of Wilmington Railroad
Company VS.. Reid, 10 wallace, page 286,
Justice Davis said: 1T has been so often
declared by this Court that u charter of
incorporation granted by State creates
a contract between the State and Corpo-
rators. which the State cannot violate.
that II would be work of supererOga-
ton to repeat the reasons on which the
argument is founded"
This was q case where the Railro ad
Company claimed an exemption from
taxation by the terms of its charter,
which exemption the Court upheld on
the ground that the State had contract
ed away the right to impose tax on the
property. See also Mobile and Ohio
Railroad Company VS. Gaines, OF United
States, 697' In the case of Sloan ct al, VS.
Pacific Railroad Company, 81 Missouri.
page "a, IL was commended by the Railroad
Company that the State of Missouri had
conferred upon it the right to fix the
tariff of charges to be received for the
transportation OF persons and property
over its line, and that the act Of til
Legislature of said State passed on the
first Of April, 1872, which was entitled
ian act TO prevent unjust discrimination and
extortion In the rates to be charged by the
Dali Ia tl.sa uNatA