The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1890-02-28

to say so. Not having said SO, the
conclusive presumption is there was
no such Intention"
! That the Company was au-
thorized by the law in force at
the time of its Incorporation to
issue it's bonds and contract for
a rate of interest. That the 0p-
Grafton of the act in question
would be to impair it's ability to
pay the rate contracted, and
thus impair the obligation OF
contract.
Numerous authorities are cited to
support this claim, but counsel fail
to distinguish between an act which
impairs the obligation of a contract,
and the exercise of a reserved right
existing at the time the contract was
entered into, which might be exer-
cised at any time, and which in law
must be said to have been in contem-
plation by the parties to the con-
tract.
A special contract, in the absence
of a reserve power, is a contract
which cannot be impaired, but a
charter taken subject to existing and
continuing reserved power, is con-
tract as against the exercise of such
reserved power. AS was said by this
Court in Ruggles VS.. Illinois, Supra,
speaking of the amended charter un-
der consideration, it must be con-
strued in the light of the established
power of the legislature. Thus, if
one purchase municipal bonds, an act
of the legislature taking away the
power of taxation to meetsuch bonds
would be void, as impairmg the OBJ
legation of the municipality, because
such contract was notentered into in
contemplation OF an existing right
to withdraw the existing power OF
taxation, or the possible exercise
of such right; but if one purchase
the bonds issued by common car
rier which is not protected by it's
charter against legislative regula-
ton of rates, a subsequent act OF the
legislature, even if it impair the
revenues of the company to an ex-
tent that it cannot pay the rate con-
tracted, for does not impair the OBJ
legation OF a contract, because the
contract was entered into in contem-
plation of such reserved power and
it's possible exercise.
The several authorities cited by
plaintiff in error upon this point, sim
ply apply to cases where the subse-
quent legislation did not rest upon
any reserved power, and are not ap-
phcable to the case at bar. Instead
of reviewing them we shall rest upon
an examination of some decisions of
this Court which clearly support the
principle we contend for.
The right OF a creditor could be NO
more sacred than those of the per-
sons who originally invested their
means in the building of the road,
and if the latter could not claim the
protection of a contract, surely the
former could not, yet this Court in
Mum VS.. Illinois, discussing this par
ticular subject, announced the rule in
unmistakable terms:
'It matters not in this case that
these plaintiffs in error had built
their warehouse and established their
business before the regulations COM
planned Of we're adopted. What they
did was from the beginning subject
to the power of the body polite to
require them to conform to such regu-
lations as might be established by
the proper authorities for the COM
mon good. They entered upon their
business and provided themselves
with the means to carry it on SUBJ
ject to this condition. If they did
not wish to submit themselves to
such interference, they should not
have clothed the public with an inter-
est in their concerns.
In Chicago. etc. R. R. Co. VS.. Iowa,
81 U. S. 155, the point was expressly
made that the company had been
authorized to contract Indebtedness
and to enforce the law would decrease
the revenues of the company and i'm
pair the obligation ofsuch contracts.
Inc COurU, a1ter speaking OF the
legislative power to regulate fares,
say: "Neither does it affect the case
that before the power was exercised
the company had pledged it's income
as security for the payment of debts
incurred, and had leased it's road to
a tenant that relied upon the earn
ings for the means OF paying the
agreed rent. The company could
not grant or pledge more than it
had to give. After the pledge, and
after the lease the property remained
within the jurisdiction of the State,
and continued subject to the same
governmental powers thatexisted be-
fore"
In Peik VS.. Chicago. etc., Ry Co.,
Id, 164, which involved the construc-
ton of a provision of the constitu-
ton OF Wisconsin, we quote from the
| Opini0u az ON pho c;1;rcr <bo /,