The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-25
adopted by the state courts after such
rights have accrued. "
COMPANY,S CONTRACT RIGHT.

adopted by the state courts after such
rights have accrued.
COMPANY'S CONTRACT RIGHT.
Judge Monks says there is some talk
of a contract, but no one has told us what
the contract is. and he thought there was
none. Your Honor held we had contract
rights here. The Supreme Court of the
United States has said: 1t is too late to
discuss the question whether a corporation
charter does not create a contract This
general street-railway law of Indiana con-
stituted contract between the State and
every corporation organizing under it. The
power of amendment reserved, and about
which Mr.. Kern talked so forcibly-or, at
least, so vioiently-is a power to amend UNI
der the Constitution. is it not? Could the
Legislature reserve the power to amend the
general street-railWay law as against us
otherwise than as the Constitution author
lied it to legisate? Plainly not. Then,
Constitution prohibited the Legislature
from amending that law so as to affect
US by a special bill, then our contract right
was valid, because it was that our charter
should be amended only by such acts as
the Constitution of Indiana authorized. No
contract? These ordinances, this general
street-railway law, our articles of incor-
pordtlon fled under it, the Constitution OF
the state of Indiana, so far as 1t restraints
or entorces that general laval make our
contract. A contract that we have right
here to have enforced, contract that We
are asking this court to construe and en-
force, contract that originated before
the Supreme Court had passed upon this
question, contract that / do not hesitate
to say it would be not only contrary to
the Constitution, but unseemly, that as to
a citizen of another State in controversy
with this State under contracts he has
made through its general charter and cor
poratlon laws should be bound absolutely
by the decision of the Supreme Court of
the State. Our right to have the State
erclse its power of amendment, our right to
have the State refrain from class legisla-
ton under the Constitution of the State
contract interparties, instead of ordinances
and laws, the State had SO stipulated with
us. 1t was valuable contract; it was one
that afrected the value of every security
issued by the company. The power of
amendment is one thing if it must be eX-
ercfsed generally, if every corporation in
like case in the State is to be affected and
it is quite another thing if under the i'm
pulse of momentary passion or excitement
single corporation. Judge Monks seems to
admit that our contract with the city for
however, TO the power of the Legislature
first, to amend or repeal; second, to its gen
eral police powers to regulate fares. But
that reserved power to amend or repeal
was a power to amend or repeal
by a constitutional law Judge Monks
says that the Constitution restraints the Gre
alton of corporations and that it stops
there; that anything that may be called
regulation is not prohibited. According to
haas once been aft Created and gwen
the power to be- 1t may be trans
formed into anything. The power
Of the Legislature may convert corporate
seraph into a corporation satyr. It may
not only reform, but deform it. 1t might
take off retrousse nose and add Jewish
nose, and through all the features
until not one of the original is left, but the
vital spark alone has not been put out and
rekindled; and yet that is what the Consti-
tuition intended the Legislature might have
the power to do, according to the Supreme
Court of the State. 1t is not the law, and
the Supreme Court of the United States
has said 1t is not. / undertake to say if
that construction had been given to the
Constitution in 1851, when it was voted
upon, it would never have been adopted and
would not be now II 1t were reSubmitted to
the people.
GENERAL HARRISON'S CLOSE.
In closing, General Harrison said Both
the Constitution Of Indiana and the Consti-
tuition of the United States are in accord,
and both proclaim this sound doctrine: that
the Legislature cannot confer upon a citi-
zen or class of citizens, or upon corpora
ton or class of corporations, special i'm
munities and powers that are not granted
to others in like case; and it cannot deny,
except upon the principle of just classical
ton the one in like case, the liberty it
gives to another. Here we have a federal
question, insisting for this complainant
that it is violation of the fourteenth
Constitution Of the United States when the
Legislature of Indiana undertakes to say
that in any one city, by name-for that is
the effect of the act-certain railroad fares
may be taken by street-railway companies,
and in all other cities, without reference to
population, they shall not be brought under
such a restraint. l desire, far as / am
concerned, to leave the case with the court,
only remarking that in asserting these
rights for my client 1 discharge a profess
sonal and a legal duty in appealing to
your Honor as one of the judges of the
Circuit Court of the United States clothed
with its judicial powers, to hear the case
of my client citizen of the State of New
York against citizens of Indiana, in which
it asks the enforcement of contract rights.
l have right to appeal to the court to
settle these rights upon its own judgment
as to the law; else it would have been bet
ter when we came that your Honor should
have said to us: Why, gentlemen, why do
you come to me? Go into the state courts
at once, because if L give you decree or
injunction and the state court takes an
other view of this case, / shall reverse my
ruling To say that would have involved a
denial of our constitutional rights, but
would have left us in a better condition,
for then the Judgment that was to be rem
dered in the state courts would have been
in a case in which we could have been
heard
The court thereupon. adjourned until 10
O. clock this morning. when Mr.. Winter will
continue the argument for the complainant.
<@-S