The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-12

recognizing the difference between the
creation of a corporation and the regula-
ton of a corporation already in existence.
There sat as members of the Legislature
passing such acts many persons who had
been members of the constitutional conven-
ton, and who were familiar with the pro-
visions of the Constitution and its intended
reforms and changes.
mo one questioned the right of the Leg
islature to pass such special acts, and for
over forty-five years the power assumed
by the Legislature has never been chal-
lenged. but has been acquesced in by the
State and people. This practical conStruc-
ton is influential French VS.. State ex rel,
l4f Ind. 6lS 625; Hovey VS. State ex REL,
119 Ind, 366; City of Terre Haute VS. Evans
vile. etc, r. r. Co CLast term and cases
cited)
CAN REGULATE CORPORATIONS.
at is one thing to create a corporation,
bring it into existence, and quite another
as an existing corporation to regulate its
conduct and relations as to other corpora
tions and persons. 1t has been decided in
many cases that when a corporation has
been created, a special act regulating it,
without changing the organization of the
corporate body is not within the prohibit
ton. Wilkins VS. State, 113 Ind, 514; Central
Ayr. and Mechan. Insurance Company, 10
Ala, 120 Attorney General VS.. North
American Life Insurance Company, 81
n. y, III; matter of Elevated Railroad. 10
N. Y, S27, 337, 33S; in matter of application
Bank VS.. Davis. l Barb. IN. " 1S8; South
ern Pacific VS.: orion, 80 Fed, 451; Green
VS.. Knife Falls Boom Corporation, 50
Mimi, $50; St. Paul, etc, Company ,ys.
Allies ct AL, "a Mimi, 775; Cotton VS. Mis-
sissippi ETC., Company, Y Mimi. 81; 81.
Joseph, etc, Railroad Company VS.. Sham
baugh, 106 Mo-, 557; State VS.. Cape Glrar-
deau, etc, Company 48 Mo, 46S; Attorney
General VS.. Joy, 50 Mich, 90: 1O6, 1O7; Wal
lace VS.. LOOMS, 81 u. S., 467; Morawitz on
Corp. Sec. u; Clark on Corp, PIP. 43-45.
The court takes up each OF these cases
cited, reviews them and makes the appH-
cation Continuing, it says:
BY the act in question no new cor
porate power or franchise was created
The directors could regulate the fare after
the amendment the same as before, subject
to the common law limitation OF reason
ableness, except that in cities OF a popula-
ton of 100000 or more, according TO the
census of 1890, the maximum fare could
not exceed cents.
This is a mere regulation of existing
corporation. and even if said act is as con-
tended by appellant, local and special, ii is
not in conflict with said Section - of Ar
ticle IL of the Constitution, which only
forbidS the creation of corporations by Spe-
cial act, and provides that they may be
formed under general law NO new cor
of 1897. Said act was mere regulation
fixing the maximum rate of fare to be col
lected by all street-railroad companies in
cities of 100000 or more population accord
ing to the United States census of 1880.
Even if said act is local, which we need
not and do not decide, ii is not special, for
the reason that it applies alike to all street
railroads that are now or may hereafter
be operated in such locality, whether there
be one or many.
Said act, by amending Section Of the
act of 1861, did not render said last-named
may be organized under the law of 1861 for
the construction Of street railroads in the
cities and towns within the State, the
same now as before the amendment of
''AII the cases cited by counsel for APP
pellant in support of their contention, eX
.pAtS CO TNnisp VIC Not AZ nTlyC
4S Cal, 493, and Central Trust Co. VS. Citi-
re as Street-rairoad Company ct al, Fed
Rep, are based upon constitutional provi-
sions of the Constitution of this State.
The cases named are against the great
weight of authority and interpolate into
not placed there.
Besides the case of San Francisco VS..
a divided court, and is in conflict with the
decision of that court in Telegraph Com
pany VS.. Telegraph Company. p Cal, 425
about the evils of local land special legis-
lation, but we cannot amend or change
the Constitution or read into it what is not
there written, merely to avoid either GER
tain or supposed danger We can only de-
clare that the Constitution means what it
says.
1T follows that the power. to regulate
existing corporations, either by amendment
or Independent act is only limited by Sec
ton % of Article of the Constitution
which provides that in all cases enumer-
ated in the preceding section (22) and in all
other cases when general law can be
made applicable, all laws shall be general
and uniform throughout the State
SPECIAL LEGISLATION.
Section %, Article 4, the section referred
to in said Section %, provides that the
General Assembly shall not pass local or
special laws in any of the following cases.
naming seventeen subjects. Where special
laws are not forbidden by the Constitu-
ton they may be enacted. That part of
said act fixing the fare at 3 cents, even if
local and special, is not in violation of said
Section % because that subject is not in
cluded in the enumeration found in said
section.
1T has been uniformly held by this court
since Gentle VS.. The State 20 Ind. 400
that whether an act relating to a subject
not enumerated in Section % of Article 4
ca" or cannot be made general law as re-
CURED by Section % of Article a. is a ques-
ton to be determined exclusively by the
LeglIsIl 5 and an not by the the courts woods
Mode VS.. Beasley 143 Ind, 3O6 Pennsyl-
vania Company VS.. State. 142 Ind, 42S;
823 Bell VS.. Marsh lS7 Ind, 226; State ex rel
Robson. 100 Ind, 434; Hovey VS.. Foster 11S
Ind, SOP; City of Evansville VS.. State ex rel.
11S Ind, 426; L. r. A. SO; Wiley VS. Burton
III Ind, 1872; Warren VS. City of Evansville
l06 Ind, 106: Johnson VS.. Board, ETC., 109
Ind, Is; Kelly VS.. State ex rel, so Ind, 236;
VS.. Chase, so Ind, 1852; State ex rel Pilman
VS.. Tucker, As Ind, 500; Glenn VS.. State, 80
Ind, 418.)
when, therefore, a local or special law
is enacted upon a subject not enumerated
in Section 22. 1t is the expressed opinion
and judgment of the Legislature that a
general law cannot be made applicable
and this judgment is not subject to be re-
viewed by the courts. Estate eX rel. Kol-
son, supra; Mode VS.. Beasley, supra, p. 315;
Woods VS.. Mccoy, supra, p. 322, and cases
cited)
THE Legislature of 1861, by passing the
act for the incorporation of street-railroad
companies a general law could not and did
not deprive any subsequent Legislature of
the right to determine whether a general
law fixing the maximum fare on street
railroads could or could not be made APP
a general law as insisted by appellant,
then under the authorities the enactment
of the same is the expressed opinion and
judgment of the Legislature that general
law could not be made applicable and this
judgment cannot be reviewed by the courts.
1T follows that the act approved March
s, 1897, Acts 1887, D. POI, so far as involved
in this case is constitutional and valid
Said act rendered the ordinance regu-
lating the payment of a fare of cents in
valid and of no effect. Appellee was en-
titled to be carried for the fare of cents
fixed by the act in controversy, and was
not liable for a refusal to pay more than
that for the reason that the ordinance re-
quirng the payment of fare of cents
was rendered Invalid by said act. Judg-
ment affirmed"