National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-29
propcrly OF Mad ohnrlLable corporntlon should


lsthCre power Of government Of deeper
concern than the right TO tnN2 Does not the
power to tax touch the sovereignty OF the gov.
eminent closer than any other authority? That
power lies at the very foundation OF the ability
of the state to govern, because there cannot be
a government without revenues aud yet so
sacred is contract in the estimation OF oar
jurisprudence that where the sovereignty con-
cCdes to n charitable corporation exemption
from taxation, that concession Is TO- endure for
ever. Public opinion changes. Public opinion
may to-day require that corporation granted
twenty five years ago exemption from taxa
ton, ought TO be taxed. Now, what are these
permanent principles Of constitutional govern
ment enacted for except II be to beat back
these changes Of oplnlon2 Cooley says In bis
work on Constitutional Law that that Is the
Office OF constitution; that you read the con-
stituton when made precisely as you read II
100 years afterward. 1t is because public senti-
ment Is tickle and ohangeable, inconstant, that
a constitutional government Is valuable To
say that because a former genera
ton has made contract that this
generation does not, mot approve Oh that
take away all the sncredness and stability of
contracts and OF constitutional government,
and TO rest all our rights upon shifting public
THE Chairman. Do not understand me, Mr..
Chardler, as intimating that II the constitution
limits the power of the government, 80 that u
cannot invade a contractor that kind, which l
regard the charter OF a corporation to be, that
the legislative power would reach IL but am
speaking now of your general proposition, that
constitutional Inhibition, caunot reach the
charter of corporation that is perpetual;
Mr. Chandler IT can reach charter that Is
perpetual If 1t has right to change the char
Ter. II may change the charter II 1t DO not a
contract. II, however, the charter OF u private
charity be contract, then say that that con.
says that YOU shall not pass law impairing
contract,
The Chairman. admit that.
Mr.. Chandler. Yes.
Now, the only question Is the old familiar one.
whether II be Il contract whether u franchise
granted Is II contract. That L. the very thing
decided by the cases cited, that y grant of u
franchise Is rot, in point of principle dis
tiuguiShablo from u grant Of any other prop
ery. II will not be pretended, suppose, that
itthere were special law granting Brigham
act Of Congress, aitcr the title vested In him,
could take the land away. Nor could any sub
tons uron Inn. ia regard TO the use Of that
land lie would I've entitled 10 the enjoyment
of that land to the fullest extent ofhls rights of
enjoying II At the time whom It was conveyed
| TO him. You cannot clip of some of the priv.
| ileges which attend II conveyance In fee sim
| pie without impairing the conveyance. You
cannot convey a mau II right aud then Giter.
| ward trim the right down To suit the changing
| state of public sentiment without impdtring the
| right. All that maPu5 II right Of valnc, all
there T. In right isthat i prcserve; its identity
| down the stream oftiuc. II II may be modified
| or taken away at the VIII Of the Legislature II
| Is no right The person simply holds the priv
ilegc sulled TO recall ut any time. That II no
| right. When We speak Of vested rights that
| are enduring and secured we mean those
rights that cannot eitLcr be taken AWAY In toto
| or impaired
| The Chairman. Excuse me, but perhaps you
may discuss Il question upon which yon would
| enlghteh my difference, at least, with you,
or inclination 10, diler. In my view, the ques
| ton Oi a repeal Of IL charter Is one thing
| Tie question of the government Selling the
| property which 1t vested, as vested right, in
The individuals interested in the charter is an
| a.TNNf HalN
| Nr. Chandler. Certainly. / am not contend.
| ing that Congress cannot provide Tor the for.
ieituro of Il charter by a judicial hearing, pro
yided 1t be either public or quasi public, but
] am contending that Congress cannot repeal 1t
where II Is quasi public, and where private
rights are implicated In 1t, without judicial
| First. those that are purely and absolutely
| public, where the government puts up all the
funds, and they are enacted for the purposes
Of government. OF course Congress may mod
tfy and change them ut will. There is an in.
termediate class ofchatters that are quasi pub.
lie, such as ferries, bridges, railroads, and all
that sort of thing. There Is a third class OF
purely private charters. and over those
private charters Congress has no power
whatever whatever That Oa Is my position I,Gn
mediate or quasi public charters, Congress may
provide for a forfeiture for nonuser or mis-
user. When 1t does forfeit. however, after a
as is said by the court ofappeals Of New York;
that remains forever the property of those
who, In law, were entitled to 1t when the char
ter was granted. The corporation is simplv =
that property 1.-THE tins,:,;;, becomes incapaci.
tated TO hold y. .,-volnes extinct. Then the
eestta - rust holds the, property; the benef'
vIuiy of the trust holds the property
In the first class of cases Congress may
take u charter away withOuta judicial hearing.
IL the intermediate class 1t cannot take IL away
| without judicial bearing In the third clnSi
II cannot lake 1t away at AL unless In the cnar::
ter IT, elf, or IN the penCral law which existed
at the time that Tie charter was granted, there
was a provision that 1t might be taken away.
where n corporation is established, not for
mere private charity, priva'e purpose. bu!
from public considerations ~ well. what kind
of iud!ci0l proceeding would you hayc to for.
fen that chatter whore the corporation itsell
d, Is not violate It's charter
| Mr. Chandler. There wOull be none unless
there Was misuscr or q n1n.uaeT.
| The Chairman. Then, in reference TO the
intermediate class, YOU hod that without q
muit OF The cooperation iI'eif, ne cnarter could
not be taken AWAY by legislative or judicial
Mr.. Channder. Yes, SIR unless there was pro
vision IN the charter itolf reserving the rlgh
Mr.. Collins. or subject to some law existing
before that!
existing NJ the timo OF the creation Of tht
charter Of that class, allowing the legislativ,
branch OF The government to recall II ut an!
Tine, !htn that Is II paLt OF the charter
|
condition; hut you take this Intermediate
class ui corporations where that proysio,
Goes not st. either In The charter itself or IL
the general law. or IN the constitution of the
state, how is It! Is these my p)W'r % take
that charter away without judicial hearing
ard can II be taken away except foT ,ctuse2
say II cannot be. Otherwise, there Is no dis.
tiLciion between charter that may be repealed
and Il chatter that may not be repealed, VIVA
doesall thisdiscussion moan that we have had IL
theSupreme Court otthe United states for year!
and years over the status OF Il corporation hay
ing a provision for its repeal and the status o
n corporation having no such provision? Ha
Dot the supreme Court gone over that doctrine
and decided as claim the law to be-
The Chairman. The ground of that Is, If yoy
will allow me 10 suggest, that underline consti
! tuition u state Is forbidden to pass any law i'm
pairing the obligation of contracts, and where
ever there is n corporation which is private
corporation IN part, thnt has beer. constitute!
by an act OflcElslature II could not be repealed
because to that extent 1t impalrs the obliga
J ton of that contract
, Mr.. Chandler. Well, am assuming, Mr.
| | Chairman, that the same disability rests OF
Congress. II am wrong In that premise, thei
OF course there Is nothing in my argument
II Congress may repeal contract wheneve
II sees IT. that Is the end OF tho contro
; versy but the Supreme Court has held tina
! Congress has no more power In that respec
! than state, and they have held 1t lately.
: can get the decision, II there is any cOntrC
yersy about that. 1t was held the othe. way I
! old times, | remember, ny the Supreme COur
J of the United States; but II 10 now settled b.
| that Tribunal thAt Congress mas no more p0We
: to impair a contract than state has.
! Then this argument proceeds upon the a.
sumption that this was corporation organi2e
by u state and that the state Is undertaking :
! recall that charter. II that were the case, the
} the state would be limited to the two ground
upon which It could recall IL; First, 1t must I'm
In the charter itself Il provision for recalling II
Second, Il must provide for judicial hearln
Q by which II could be forfeited for cause un
:. unless you proceed IN one of those two ways ;
5 take away charter Of one of those inferno
! dGte corporations you cannot take 1t away q
: all
4 / will admit that II does not make any dlffei
enCe II II Is private charity, II II has in IL
Y charter the provision that II may be repealed
Q because private charter takes the grant wit
h | nlI No rnndlilnna nnh Inrna Int In III ~ wran