St. Paul daily globe., 1895-11-17
HIhL IS ENJOY NED.
Continued From Sixth Page,

Continued From Sixth Page.
Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba con1-.
pany.
The defendants counsel insist, how.
ever, that even although section IL OF
the act of 1856 reserved to the state the,
right to amend that act, yet as no Such
reservation is contained in the act on
1867 it follows that the act of 1863 Is
not subject to amendment. Tney rely
upon the case of New Jersey VS.. Yard,
95 L. S. 104 (24 Law Ed, 352). That case,
decides that reservations of the right.
TO repeal found in statutes are binding
on succeeding legislatures, so far as
they choose to adopt them; "and
legislative contract may be made Whlch
is not repealable if the legislature so
intend" And that sit is, therefore. in
every case, a question whether the Leg
iSlature making the contract intended
that the former provision Tor repeal or
amendment should become a part Of
the new contract by implication"
CITES OTHER CASES.
Now, in New Jersey VS.. Yard there
might be found reasons to hold that
the contract made under a supplement
to or amendment to a former law was
intended by the parties to be irreVoca-
BILE. Here there is absolutely no rea-
son whatever to suppose that the leg
islature of 1860 intended to do more
than amend and add to the former act
in certain particulars and have the
amended act, including section H. re-
main as the charter of this company.
No other holding is possible. Section lion
II is as much a part of the act of 1865
as it is of 1856. MorawetZ Corp'n, 70
Ed, sec. II and T. The New Jersey
case and the case at bar in the facts
are as wide apart as the poles;
While l need not place this decision
"a grant to a corporation of the right
to consolidate with other companies
means, in the absence of an express
provision to the contrary, that 1t may
form a consolidated company subject
to all the general laws in force at the
time of the consolida tion." Morawetz,
sec. 94S St. L. & l. NJ. and S. Ry. Co.
VS.. Berry. 113 U. S., 460-416. Which
means that, even regarding the rlght 10
consolidate as indefeasible, it takes eff
feet as of the time of consolida ton,
and does not relate back to the. date OF
the charter. 1t may be also observed,
that neither the law of 1874 or 1881
prohibits consolidation generally. 1t
merely regulates its exercise and re-.
stricts it to line non-parallel' and non
competing. With this in mind, this
case is clearly within the rule in G., NJ.
& st. P. Ry. Co. VS.. Minnesota, ia Y.
S., 41S-466. There a right equally val
liable, to fix tolls, contained in a char.
ter wherein was reserved no power 10
amend it was held subject to leg1S-
lative control.
Being entirely satisfied that defend
ants charter comes within the excep-
ton. and is not within the rule laid
down in the Dartmouth College case, II
would be merely affectation on my part
to review the many cases cited to me
as bearing upon that decision. Suf-
flee it to say there is no disagreement
between court and counsel in that re-
gard 1 have applied to this charter
the rules of construction which are
well settled. Where doubts have arisin
[ have resolved them, as is my duty IN
such cases, in favor of the state.
The conclusion / have reached be-
lieve is not alone strictly legal, but is
to the very best interests of the state
of Minnesota and of all the states
crossed by these roads, and also in
the true interest of the defendant is
self.
l am therefore constrained to hold
that the charter Of the defendant, the
Great Northern Railway company, does
not, either expressly or by necessary
implication, authorize the consolida--
ton proposed in the answer to be made
with the Northern Pacific company
when reorganiZed.
That if said charter ever contained
such authority, it was subject to
amendment by the legislature of Min
nesota, and that it has been amended
amended by the general laws now In
force so as to revoke the power.