Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-11-07

situation, for the act of March g. 1891 re-
CURED the payment of the reversed judg-
ment, judgment as effectually reversed
anu IN every respect negative as II the Su-
pieme Court had rendered its Judgment upon
every assignment of error. 1t also required
the payment of the costs of the cause not
Withstanding the judgment for costs against
the District, and the failure to paw these
costs was declared and made of equal Ia
tality to the failure to pay the amount of
the judgment.
Such legislation. said Judge Bradley. could
not be sustained. The reserved power of
Congress to repeal, alter or amend the
charter OF the company could not be ques-
toned, but it had its limitations and its
exercise must be by such alterations and
amendments of the charter come within
the just scope of legislative power 1t could
not be used to take away property already
acquired under the operations of the char
ter, and the alterations must be reasonable
made in good faith and be consistent with
the object and scope of the act of incor-
poration. Sheer oppression and wrong could
not be inflicted under the guise of an
amendment or alteration.
Not n Repeating Act.
The act in question, continued Judge
Bradley. was not a repeating act; 1t did not
purport to be an amendment or alteration
of the charter. 1t was sheer adjudication
by legislative body Of a right In favor of
one party against another without the form
of a hearing. The legislature may impose
duty upon body corporate. it's creature.
the on-performance of which would be a
cause Of forfeiture, but it transcribed legis-
lative powers when 1t enacted that upon the
failure to perform such duty the charter of
said company shall become forfeit. The
question Of forfeiture was essentially a
judicial question involving vested right, re-
quiring investigation and demanding notice
to the party to be affected by the forfeiture
with full opportunity of hearing. Neither
the executive nor the legislative department
of the government are equipped for such an
inquiry, and the exercise of such function
by the legislature is not contemplated by
the Constitution.
The attempted deprivation OF rights by
such legislative usurpation of power Is not
due process of law. The same remarks ap-
ply with greater force perhaps to the effect
of the act in question as a legislative Judg-
ment against the company for the payment
of its judgment. interests and costs, and
that, too. without reference to the still more
unique feature Of the enactment in the re-
versal of the judgment of the Supreme
Court. Clearly the enactment was unconsti-
tutional and void, as depriving the defend
ant of its property without due process Of
law. The law of self-preservation demands
a prompt refusal of the forfeiture, for the
judicial department must maintain its in
dependence. The rights of the citizen, which
are jeopardiZed by the act, require an EN-
phatic denial by the court, their only hope
In and protection from oppression.
In support of his position Judge Bradley
quoted numerous authorities, and in con-
clusion dismissed the demurrer of the gov
ernment.
The situation.
The dismissal of the governments de-
murrer leaves the case. IT is understood,
yet to be determined upon the pleas of the
company to the information. From Judge
Bradleys decision the government can, of
course. appeal. but just what course will be
pursued will probably be determined after
a consultation by District Attorney Birney
with the Attorney General.