Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-02
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
(ExcluSIvely for virginian-Pllot>
S. L., I. NJ. 6 S. r. CO. v. PAUL.

Supreme Court of the United States
March g. 1899.
THE ACT OF ARKANSAS REQUIR-
ING RAILROAD COMPANIES TO
PAY THEIR employees. WHEN
DISCHARGED, THEIR UNEARN-
ED WAGES. OR THAT SUCH
WAGES SHALL CONTINUE AT
THE SAME RATE UNTIL PAID.
NOT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS, DOES
NOT DENY SUCH COMPANIES
THl0 EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS. NOR DEPRIVE THEM
OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.
This action was for wages, or Il pen,
atty, due plaintiff by the railroad cons
pany under an act OF the Legislature
of Arkansas requiring railroad compa-
MES to pay all employees when they
were discharged the wages then earned
without deduction. or that such wages
should continue at the 50 ne rate until
paid, but not to exceed co days. The
defendant claimed that the act was in
violation OF articles five and fourteen
of the amendments to the Constitution
of the United states. The lower courts
gave judgment for the plaintiff ana the
railroad company appealed.
The court says:
The contention Is that as to railroad
corporations organized prior to- it's pas
sage. the act Is void because In -vi5ia-
ton Of the fourteenth amendment. cor
porationS are the creations of the
state, endowed with such faculties as
the state bcstowS, and subject to such
conditions as the State imposes. and IL
the power to modify their charters is
fhp. . i.,,, g
the contract, ana no change within tho
legitimate exercise of the power can
be said TO impair it's obliSa ton: and as
this amendment rested on reasons de-
duced from The peculiar character of
the business of the corpora lions affect
ed and the public nature of their func-
lions, and applied 10 all alike the equal
protection of the law was not denied
The question then is. whether the
amendment should have been held UNI
authorized because amounting to n de-
privation of property forbidden by the
Federal constitution. The power to
amend cannot be used to take away
property already acquired under the
operation Of the charter, or to deprive
the corporation OF the fruits actually
reduced to possession OF contracts law
fully made" but any alteration or
amendment may be made that will not
defeat or substantially impair the OBJ
ject Of the grant, or any rights which
have vested under It, and that the Leg
islaturc may deem necessary to secure
that object or other public or private
rights"
This act was purely prospective in its
operation. 1t did not interfere with
vested rights. or existing contracts. or
destroy. or sensibly encroach upon. the
right 10 contract. although it did i'm
pose duty in reference to the pay
nent of wages actually earned which
restricted future contracts in he par
ticnlar named. In view of the fact
that these corporations We're clothed
with public trust, ana discharged du-
ties of public consequence, affecting the
community at large. the Supreme Court
held the regulation, as promoting the
public interest in the protection of
employees to the limited extent stated.
to be properly within the power to
amend reserved under the State Con-
6titution.
Inasmuch as the right to contract Is
not absolute. but may be subjected to
the restraints demanded by the safety
and welfare Of the State. we do not
think that conclusion in it's application
to the power to amend can be DISPUTED
on the ground of infraction OF the FOur-