The evening times., 1900-02-05


and TO require il to keep going on. In
definitely furnishing service and supplies
Would not an action for damages be ;
complete and adequate remedy on behal
of party who might be wrongfully re
fused the use of telephone? The cour
obtains no additional power in this direc-
tion by virtue of the act in question. L
imposes no new duty or power on the de
fendant. but only deprives it of its power
TO charge beyond the maximum rates to bt
thereafter received. The bill does moi
state a case. and the evidence fails Il
show case, where irreparable injury
would be done the complainants by per-
mitting the defendant to remove its tele-
phone from the complainant s office. The
ayerment is that their business will be
greatly interrupted and injured, and they
viii be put to loss, annoyance and en-
barrassment. for which they will have nc
adequate remedy at law" There is nc
aYerment that the defendant is insolvent
or that the injuries to be sustained by the
complaipants would be irreparable.
The ccmplainants could still conduct
their business, which is that of dealers in
marble. as they were obliged to do only
a few years ago, by mail messengers, tele-
graph. personal interview, or otherwise
This might be less convenient and more
expensive. but if damage was sustained by
the wrongful refusal of the defendant to
connect them with the exchange, could ii
not be ascertained and recovered in an ac-
tion at law? There are questions which
indicate grounds for refusing the injunc-
tion and dismissing the bill, it seems to
me- based on the want of jurisdiction and
absence OF equities.
But. as the case is a novel one, and
raises important constitutional questions.
some enquiry as to these should be made
before disposing of the case.
Congregational Limitations.
While Congress is given power ito exer-
else exclusive legislation in all cases what
Soever" over this District that should not
be understood to mean that il can exer-
else powers which are prohibited to the
States. in respect of personal rights guar
anteed by the Constitution. What can Con-
gress do by way of legislation affecting the
property rights of the citizen more than a
State can do The exclusive legislation 1t
is authorized to exercise over this District
means only legislation exclusive of any
State. That is, no State shall have any
right or power whatever to legislate +
The territory constituting the seat of tie
National Government. Persons resld ng
ana doing business here, however, are just
as safely protected in their rights If uial
By JURY, their freedom Of speech. their
night Of petition, their right 10 be secul e
IN their persons, houses. papers, aud ef-
fects against unreasonable searches ard
seizures. the right to be not deprived Cf
life, liberty, or property without due pre-
cess Of law, and the right 10 have pri-
vate property not taken for public u e
without just compensation. as are the citi-
zens Of the States. This protectioa is guar
anteed by the first ten Amendments % the
Constitution. which are limitations upon the
power Of Congress. and not upon the pow
er of the States.
While section 10 of the first article of
the Constitution expressly provides that no
State shall pass any law impairing the
obligation of contracts. il is not TO be iu-
ferred or presumed from that language
that Congress can do so. There is no eX-
press power given it TO DO so, and noac
can be implied except in a case where 1t
is given express power to legisiate upon
d certain subject in which case this power
TO lcgislate cannot be defeated by the fact
that il must incidentally or necessarily
impair the obligation OF contracts. Some
Of such cases are these relating To bank
rupts. regulating the value Of money, de
claring war. etc BY the Tenth Amend
meut. the powers not delegated TO the
United States by the Constitution. nor
prohibited by il TO the States are reserved
TO the States respectively or TO the peo-
pie.
While Congress has exclusive legislative
power over this District. in the sense
above quoted. it is not authorized to take
AS lot for a public building. without just
compensation or BIS horse from his stable
and give il TO c or to deprive ID OF his
contract OF lease by requiring him to can
eel the same. and surrender il to E with
out consideration. IT, however, by any
construction il can be said that Congress
is not prohibited by the express provisions
of the tenth section of Article | from
passing any Law impairing the obligation
of contracts. still il is contended that the
language of the Fifth Amendment neces-
sarily prohibits such legislation. for con-
tracts are property. within the meaning OF
that provision, which cannot be taken
without due process OF law. The property
Of some persons may be wholly invested in
contracts with other persons, and will il
be contended that Congress can arbitrarily
take this property right or contract in
YES tment away without compensa ton?
Can it, in the exercise of exclusive legis-
Iation here. impair a private contract. not
interfering with the power to legislate on
a certain subject. any more than a State
Legislature can do so in a State In my
opinion. this question can only be an
swered in the negative.
The Value of Contracts.
Such being the proper construction, is
the law now under consideration repug
nant to such provision? On June so. 1888.
the defendant. corporation. but still
person within the meaning of that
word as used in the Constitution-as
decided many times by the Supreme Court
lSmyth vs.. Ames. 169 L 5. 522D-had
numerous contracts in force with private
persons, and with the District and General
on the faith Of which it was
justified in making expenditures and in-
urring obligations. These contracts were
,ased on good and valuable consideration,
lct against public policy, and were in
very sense legal. They had been volun-
arily made were in writing, and were
uly signed. They had some time to run
'efore they could be terminated by either
f the parties thereto. If said act could
'e construed in no other way than as re-
ating to ard intended 10 be operative upon
aid contracts, so as to relieve the con-
racting parties from their obligations
hereunder. / should have to hold that it
vas beyond the legislative power
But L 90 not tnlhk III Is necessary TO so
onstrue it. or that il was so intended. At
my rate it should be construed in such
ray as to render it unobjectionable on that
round. if such construction be possible
The words are that from and after the
,assage of this act it shall be unlawful for
NY person or any telephone company do
ng business in the District of Columbia to
barge or receive more than $50" etc. The
words "to charge" would seem to imply
ONE act to be thereafter done by the per-
on or telephone company, some contract
o be thereafter made in which charges
we're to be fixed; and if that is true then it
would not necessarily apply to any lawful