The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-04-28
The Transfer Act Affects
Vested Rights.
Impalrs0bligatiOn of Contracts
Mr.. Brown Says.
Unconstitutional Features Of the
Measure Pointed Out.

The public hearing before the judiciary
committee OF the House OF Representatives
on the transfer bill was continued this
afternoon.
Attorney Arthur l.. Brown appeared in
the interests of the Union Railroad Com
pany and discussed the question from the
legal point of view.
He delivered an excellent address, taxi
ing up one after another, the points OF
constitutional law involved and presented
the best of reasons why the Legislature
should not pass bill that lntefreres with
vested rights.
He took the constitution OF the United
States as the base of his argument.
Mr.. Brown saiu, In brief, that the bill Is
unconstitutional because its passage would
impair the obligations OF at least four
contracts existing between the city OF
Providence and the Union Railroad Com
pany between the company and the bond
holders. and between the State and the
bond holders. The impairment Of any
one OF these contracts would render the
bill unconstitutional.
The legal basis OF the majority report
OF the Council committee is unso1pd and
therefore the entire situation taken by
the committeeman is false.
The rights of the bondholder were
first considered, and the act of May
1892 authorizing the railroad compsny
TO issue its first mortgage bonds was an
alyzed line by line.
The bill provides for 20-year mortgage
and il the act is terimnable il Will, as the
committee implies, the 20-year clause
means nothing. And this was but one of
the many glaring Inconsistencies pointed
out in the bill which the City Council of
Providence has asked the General AS
sembly TO pass.
The act of 1892 contained clause rela-
tive to the fares and the Union Railroad
Company was prevented from incre asing
its feres. There was no provision against
the reduction of fares and therefore the
City Council committee claims now that
the company can be compelled 10 reduce
fares. Mr.. Brown argued that the matter
of reduction was left open In order to adj
nit of one should the business warrant it.
Fo fifustrate this point ttfr. Brown stat
ed that many roads had the Legislative
authority and charge 10 cent iares, but
had voluntarily abandoned it as a matter
OF business policy.
In conclusion Attorney Brown claimed
that the Union Railway Company has the
best of legal rights to regulate its own
affairs, based, first, on an ifrevoca bic
right granted by the State OF Rhode
leland and secondly upon the constitution
of the United States which pevents eny
State from enscting laws that will impair
the obligations of contracts. With this
claim Mr. Brown closed his argument
THE CITY's AN swER.
Councilman Tanner, selected by the
city committee to reply TO counsel for
the railroad company made an elaborate
apology for being present.
His contention was that the State has
ample authority to regulate the fares
which may be charged by railroad corpo-
rations.
MIR. Tanner declared that the State has
power TO change the conditions of char
ters unless provision To the contrary is
expressed, and, he continued, there is no
such contrary provision in the charter of
the Union Railroad Company.
Mr.. Tanner belped himself out of
water altogether too deep for him by in
timating that the arguments on the other
side were not worth bis while to answer.