The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1895-12-29

~ contract has been deined 10 H. an
Ia ~, ~, upon sufficient consideration
Wheat. 1917 ~ % d a9 a particular thing,
s s,MIeen competent parties, upon legal y n,
alussa uoh, TO do or to abstain from, 1oiro
Of tbe AT ns STORY on Constitution, L. Nonse
| 10 III essential clements OF contract nrs
w., w pc iplnd In the grant OF llcenas =.
| rnac,lce law; there is no engagement 10
license t he STAT ns ~, AM the Applicant To-.
| iaw Tor livelihood; 10 LEGAL crNs ' d VI
ton ~ paid FOR the license. The prauf a.
rn svN license IL mere naked pralst ~ n
| he nnnIl without consideration and which
, s,on avali himself of. THEREFOR tha stota
may revoke the privilege granted or Inv
n 'rse d suSn Sonditi)ns upon its exercise rs
public Interest" Tho reosontna ~ the
p, r court OF Missouri quot ID AMI gu gu
| niicaLi ~ our court of appeals s an
The teacbnr'sso 5i,o oy every particular to
question, and Is In my judgment c,'3, MN ,,i
| Ian, i t against the contention of nnnef
iamt IN this case VI appel
,r me decisions of the United States s,,.
prehe court also approves Tho ~, ~.
sn la ilCtEse is rot IA contract "a Howe
III, = wan, i62; !S U. s., 1863 / might resi-
there ef ia OF the present case here but
stems to ne, should be noticed In me
connection. The teachers ceriisjc,t. 'ras
ia,es not TO the private business Of teanh-
n 1d' ra ou, 70 Q public employment. II Is
ny required OF those who teach in nriv,fe
schi93ols, hut only of those who ,oneh in
pupile schc OILS. The teacher OF n n,,h,ir
t tbaf q u, 80 a pubic employe, and to say
mini, IL ~ pSS'non who has once obtained an
nio,,l,sa license to engage in such en-
piuyment, can insist that as TO him the
INV h" n,ust Always remain ms II was when
IN o op.o'hei his license is to put
state to raise the e" standard ' oe
Guaifications required of teachers In .Ie
pubic schools and bar the door TO nroy
tb sS n NM improvement in the branch OF
sancing but of which the possibilities
nave as yet scarcely been conceived by
ele most progressive of the persons en-
glged In H. II would he TO saw that the
state. having once declared certain auai-
ilvhtions sufficient to render persons eli
slnIe 10 employment in this branch of the
huhIic service without fixing a limit Tor
me expiration of this eligibility. could
not alter the standard so as to affect tile
numerous persons who had met the rc-
quisenenls of the old law II must he
eV'Jent that this would cripple the state
IN lhe management of the public bust
MSS IN way never thought of by those
VINO framed the provision for maintaining
me integrity of certain rights of com
tract l'ho supp enc court OF the United
states has st carefully drawn the dis
tinctfon between the destruction of pri-
waite rights of contract and the MANAGE
ment oil the public affairs of the State,
| power of the States In respect of It's public
business.
For Instance, In the case of Butler ve.
| Pennsylvania OG Howard, lOS). the court
n unholding the validity of al act Of
Tie lennsylvania legislature reducing the
per diem OF canal commissioners from 81
!!s1r,SS during tteir term of Office, says;
Ihe, contracts designed to be protected
ny me tenth section of the lirst article
OF That instrument UNITED States consti-
t ,1hl arr contracts by which perfect
rishts, certain definite, fixed private
| right. of prOncrty. are vested. Those are
clearly distinguishable from measures "
engagements adopted or undertaken by
the body polite or State government for
the benefit OF all and from the necessity
of the case and according to universal
rnucrstanding TO be varied or discontin-
selection Of officers. who are nothing
more than agents for the enectinc OF
such purposes, is a matter of public con-
nohence or necessity, and so, too, are
! inc PERIODS Tor the appointment of such
agents, but nCiher the one nor the other
o. these airnngeu cnts can constitute any
obligation 70 continue such agents OF 10
realipoint them after the measures whica
I brought them into hcing shall have been
I round useless, shall have been fulplIol
| or shal have been abrogated even
dermental tc the well being of tho pub
/ tc. The promised compensation for SER
vices actWtlly performed and accepted
curing tho continuance of the particular
agency may undoubtedly he cinimcd both
upon principles Of G nlract and equity,
but 10 Insist beyond this on the pcrpetua-
| ton OF public polly cithcr useless or
detrimental. end upon rewards Tor acts
h"iiher desired nor performed, would ap-
pear to he rcconcilablc with neither com
mon justice nor common sense. Tho IS.
tahlishmcnt of such q principle would
, arrest, necc sarly, everything Ike prog
rosa or improvement In government, or,
/ II changes should be Ventured upon, the
government would have TO heci me one
great pension establishment on when to
QUarer u host OF siuecuts. 1t follows,
then. upon principle. that In every per-
feet or competent government there must
exist a gcuC raj uNcr to enact and to
/ rtpeal laws, and 10 make and change or
4 scontipuc the agents dcs;gnated for the
execution OF these laws Such powcr
IS Indispensable for the preservation Of
I individuals OF the community We
have already shown that the appointmcnt
to and tenure Of an office created 'or
public use and the regulation Of the sal
any affixed to such office do not fall with
IN the meaning OF the section of the con-
suiut.on relied on 10y plaintiffs in error.
term contract, or. In other words, the
vested personal rights thereby Intended
TO be protected. They are functions mp
/ Tropiiatc 10 that cl9ss of powers and OIL
legations by whirh governments are en-
! ablod and called upon TO foster and pro-
1 luatc the general good functions which
| governments can not be presumed 10 have
( surrendered II. indeed, they can, under
any, CIRCUMSTANCES, be Justified II nnr-
! rendering Them
Again in the case Of Newton VS.. Com
missloners. 10 Otto 3lS, the question IS
| deliberately discussed. In this case an
| act OF the legislature had provided that
rs coon as the Inhabitants OF a certain
| town had erected n certain public buiid-
! Ing for the county, the town should be-
| cone the permanent seat of justice of the
| county The people went forward and
erected the buildings and the town be-
/ came the county seat. Afterwards an
act was adopted changing the county seat
/ and 1t was attempted IN this suit 10 deny
| the right of the legislature 10 make t,ie
| change But the supreme court of the
| United Gtates upheld the authority, ~
! The legislature to make the change Inc
| opinlon says The Dartmouth College
! case was the pioneer in this field OF our
! Jurisprudence Din refer noe 10 vested
| rlgh;s) Tho principle there laid down
| and since maintained In the cases which
! have followed and been controlled by IT,
! has no application where the statute IN
! question Il public Law relating 20 n
| rublic subject Within the domain 81 the
| general legislative power OF the STATE
| and involving the public rights anu pun
| iis welfare 81 the entire .Ommuhlty al
/ fcrted by H. The two classes OF cases
| nro separated by broad line Of deinar a
! Hon The distinction was forced upon
! Inc attention of the court by the argG-
| nent In the Dartmouth College case:
| Mr. chief Justice Marshall SAID: 'Thbt
| anterior 10 the formation OF the consutu;
| lion a course OF legislation had rTeVallen
! in many II not in all of the States, which
weakened the confidence Of man IN man