Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-06-14
IRREPEALABLE LEGISLATION.

There Is q popular impression, at
least. that no legislature. Congress or
government can bind itself. or the State
perpetually, in any material bargain.
contract or agreement; and although
the doctrine of vested interests" was
for awhile recognized by the bar and
the courts, that doctrine, in practice.
has been so evaded, modified and
grown obsolete that 1t really has of
late been of little practical conse
quence to the public; but a late deci-
sion of a Maryland court revives the
doctrine in nearly all it's ancient force
and Importance, and makes even the
sovereignty of the State subject to the
omnipotence OF the contract-so often
SLY. delusive and treacherous.
The case in Maryland Is that of the
State against the Northern Central
Railway Company. as to taxes on the
gross receipts of the corporation. At
torney- G eneral Gather. speaking of the
decision in the Superior Court of Mary
land. submits some apt reflections and
suggestions that must interest all good
citizens. We quote in full what he
says in the Baltimore Sun:
I'm the opinion of Judge Dennis the
act of 1880 is an inviolable contract
between the State and the railroad
company by which the railroad COM
pany, is forever protected from pay
ment of any greater taxes to the State
of Maryland than one-half per cent.
upon its gross receipts. Under the act
~ ha ir,n TN Of
per cent upon the gross receipts of all
railroad companies in this State. If
the Court of Appeals should affirm the
decision of the lower court. this would
mean an annual loss of revenue to this
State Of over $4,000, but the principle
involved in this decision is OF the great
est Importance to the people of this
State. and l consider it most necessary
that the question should be finally set
tied by the highest court.
Ever since 1851, by the Constitution
of this State and also of almost every
State in the Union. the Legislatures
ha -e been prohibited from granting ir-
rcpcalable privileges to any corpora
ton. The learned Judge. in his opinion,
admits that this exemption from taxa
ton, except at a rate of one half per
cent. ii ii had betn included in the
original act of Incorporation or in any
amendment TO 1t. would have been re-
pealable Mt the pleasure Of any subse
quent Legislature. Nevertheless. the
same results can be obtained. in his
view. by means of a contract entered
into with the Legislature, whether the
same is. in terms or rot, an amend
ment to the charter.
''If there is such n power in the Leg
islature of this State to make an ire
nealable exemption to any corpora ton.
ii is high time that the people were
acquainted with this fact In order that
the Constitution of the State should be
amended so as to cover specifically any
such violations of the spirit and intent
of the Constitution OF 81 and the Con-
Stituti0n of 81.
The tendency OF the recent decision
of the Supreme Court of the United
states has been to minimize the effect
OF the old Dartmouth College case and
practically TO allow the States to repeal
any contracts for exemption where they
nave been made under constitutional or
statutory restrictions intended to multi
fy the effect of the original decision. In
fact. in tax cases they have limited the
original decision until 1t has very little
effect. 1t is true that the exact form Of
the contract in this case has never been
passed upon by the Supreme Court.
and. therefore. there was no decision
quoted at the hearing which was ex-
actly applicable TO the facts of the
present case.
I'm view OF the tremendous growth
of corporate bodies in this country at
the present time and of their control of
SO many franchises which belong to the
people, 1t is vitality important that the
rights Of one Legislature to bind sub
sequent Legislatures should be finally
settled in this case. I trust this will
be done under the decision In this