The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-04-06
CHEAP COAL.


same would DO paid il The lease authorized by
Inns act had not been made.
These anIend!nenL5 are OF great inn
portance III protecting the interests of
the State. They prevent any court from
deciding that this legislation. or any pro-
ceediuRs under it, shall create u contract
between the State aud any of the cor
poratious Interested. They also prevent
any construction of the act which will
enable Tile railroad Companies to reduce
their taxes or interfere with the full and
fee exercise by the State of its taxing
powers iu reference TO these corporations.
1t fully protects the STATES power of
taxation, present. and future, and pre-
vents any decrease in the amount Of State
or local taxes received from each of the
CONSOLIDATED cornorations.
DOUBTFUL CONSTITUTIONALITY.
l have grave doubts OF tue constItutton-
atty of this bill. The fifth section pur-
ports to suspend the operation OF an act
entitled A act respecting the leasing of
railroads." approved May ID, 1885. in its
application TO certain corporations. The
wording is that the act referred 10 shall
not apply to such railroad corporation rs
shall, within fOrty-eight our after the
passage or approval OF this act, file IN the
Office Of the secretary of State q copy Of
tie lease referred to i'll said act OF May ~,
1885, and such corporations SO fling may
thereafter enter ipto any farther Or other
lease" This appears 10 be in co%ntraven-
tion of ariicie 4, section Z. paragraph 4 OF
The State Constitution, which provides as
follows: .Nu law sh III be revived or
amended by reference to its title only, but
the act revived Or the section or sec
tions amended shall be inserted at
leuIth." The fifth section of this bill is
an amendment TO the act OF 1885 In
words and purpose. In HariDg v. The
state, % Vroom 800. it is held, citing
other cases, that The object of the con-
stitutioLal amendment was to show the
lawnsaker the true meaning Of a proposed
enactment without the necessity OF re-
sorting to the old law" Ii seems impos-
sible thut any one not acquainted with
the provisions of the act OF 1885 could,
from u reading of this bill, tell whether
advantages were granted or burdens i'm
p }sed by section five. To ascertain the
meaning of that section, it is necessary
to couslrue the sct sought to be suspended
or amended, III II | had not reached my
conclusion about this bill upon other
grounds, the apparent uuconStltution-
atty of the proposed legislation presents
an objection which would require very
careful deliberation.
POLICY Of q STATE.
The scheme Of the original act Is not a
novel one i'll the State OF New Jersey. All
the great railroad companies crossing
State, except The New Jersey Central.
are in the control of aud operated by
foreign corporations, under acts legallz-
ing the leasing of domestic corporations.
Tie Central Railroad was formerly oper-
aled by the Philadelphia and Reading
Railroad Company, "a foreign corporation.
unuer a lease dated May ~. 1883, which
was set aside iu 1886 by tle Chancellor,
(See Mills v. G. Il. Il. Co., IA Stew. ~
Under this general policy the State has
not suffered any injury. unless the fact OF
the foreign control or our domestic
corporations is in itself harmful.
T. ic Dla,, that the mambnrg 0f the
Legislature considered that they were, in
passing this bill, pursuing the settled
policy of the State, which has been TO
encourage, rather han discourage. the
consolidation of railroad corporations
having a common interest in travel and
business.
A careful examination Of the act in
question fails to disclose any authority
conferred by it which would authorize or
assist any combination to control the
necessaries of lite. There is nothing la
the bill which authorizes a control of
prices by corporations beyond the natural
rule of supply and demand 1t has been
commended that this bill would authorize
q combination of ownershipS and interest
that would increase the price OF coal to
The experience of the past
as to the consolidation OF railroads does
not show that an Increase IN the price OF
the article transported is a natural result
of such railroad consultations, where
there are other railroads and trans
portatiop facilities which are in
competition with such consolidated
interest. A combination of all
railroad companies carrying coal across
our State might place it within the
power of these corporations to control the
prices and output of coal, but, so far as
this act is concerned, there is nothing in
the provisions, or In the joint business
proposed to be carried on by the compa-
- r. --L@.a nun fkfz Asrf n ~ N
was urged, which would deprive the
public Of the benefit of competition be-
tween the consolidated corporations to
be affected by this act and the other conf
mon carriers of coal across our State.
NEW QUESTIONS.
There have been questions presented
since the passage OF this act which were
not considered by the Legislature when
the measure was before the House and
Senate, which were not referred to in
the arguments upon the merits OF the
measure. and which probably escaped at
tention in the hurried hours OF the hnal
adjournment.
The reasons influencing the members
of the Legislature who voted for the
passage of this bill were, as presented to
me:
FIRST, The belief of some of them. which
belief they then entertained and still eu-
terrain, that this new combination under
LhS ~ Va
create a strong competitor to railroad
consultations OF other corporations al
ready existing, and il this view they
voiced the wishes of their constituents in
voting for this act.
They believed that this new force would
enable them to obtain additional railroad
facilities, of which they were deprived
under existing combinations.
Second. In the Judgment of other mem
bers. the result OF this legislation would
be TO decrease the expense of bringing
coal into the markets of this State. This
would undoubtedly enable the roads
GENERATING under it TO reduce their tx
nenses, and the cost of coal, but the ques-
lion still remains:-"Who IL to receive
the benefit Of this reduction?" Is it TO be
the consolidated companies or The COD
sumner.
Third. This hill was undoubtedly
passed with the understanding and UNI
deg the conviction that it's effect would
he to reduce the price OF coal to consum-
ers in this State.
Fourth, The fact that the bill was not
delivered to me until the day OF ina adj
iournment, and information from mem
hers couvinces me that the Legislature
relied upon the Executive to see thai
the interests of the people were pro-
tected, us those interests should De de-
yelopsd by II thorough consideration OF
this measure in all It's bearings. Wltn
this view | have made the most careful
and exhaustive examination OF all the
questions involved. so as to reach d cor
rect conclusion.
PRICE OF COAL.
i ,l..A $50. NIlI vund Tnnt n