The sun., 1900-05-30

right or privilege to locate, operate or
maintain electric railways in the city,
and if it shall in any way lessen the
revenues or income of the complainant
| it is only such lessening thereof as
arises from lawful and healthful compe-
tition.
Mr., Hilles in his argument in reply to
Mr.. Salisbury said:
ssThe question raised, and the sole
question, in the light of the decision OF
the chancellor thai the Wilmington City
Railway Company has the exclusive
right to operate a city railway in the
city OF Wilmington from which deci-
sion we most respectfully dissent, but
will assume in the argument OF this
cause as correct) is, can railway be au-
thorized under the General Incorpc rd-
tion Law OF this State to construct and
operate a city railway in the city OF Viii
mington?
''In the United States a, corporation
can exist only where there is some law
authorizing its existence. 1t is the crea-
ture Of the Legislative branch OF the
Government. In the case of corporations
created by special laws the law creating
it, and the laws of the State existing AT
the time of its creation, and applicable
poration is created under a general law
that general law, with its articles of as
sociation form its charter or the law OF
its creation.
"The question then is, admitting for
the purposes of the argument alone that
the Wilmington City Railway Company
had the exclusive right claimed under
its charter, can the Legislature authorize
another railway company to operate in
the city of Wilmington, and to that ex-
tent revoke the exclusive rights OF the
Wilmington City Railway Company?
"Although the charter of the Whining
ton City Railway Company does not
contain the general power OF revocation
required by section II, article 2, OF the
constitution OF 1881, it has been held by
the chancellor that the constitutional
reservation must be read into and forms
part of the charter of the company, as
much so as if contained therein in ex-
press language. The Legislature has no
right under the constitution to incor-
porate the Wilmington City Railway
Company without reserving such power.
! The reservation is part OF the grant
itself
| ''It mus be determined whether there
! is in the constitution OF 1887 any limita-
sion Of the power Of the Legislature to
exercise the right reserved to revoke the
charter Of the complainant. The only
provisions Of the new constitution ap-
| plicable are those found in article 9.
''Section OF this article is manifestlv
aim ID at the effort OF corporations to
amend or renew its charter rather than
at any power OF the Legislature to amend
or rene~. This section has nothing to do
with nor is it any limitation upon the
power Of the Legislature to revoke"
Col. Nields followed Mr.. Hilles and
eaid in his argument that it was ques-
ton of constitutional construction; that
the complainant asks for construction
of the constitution of 1887, the effect of
which construction will be to change its
charter from revocable into an irrevoc-
able cnarter and to place its charter within
the rule in the Dartmouth College case as
thus stated in the United States reports,
page 923, as fellows: Yet it can scarcely
be denied that in the long run it has
operated to establish in equality before
the law to confer benefits npon the few
and burdens upon the many and TO Grip
pie the State in the efficient control of its
citizens and the conservation of their
welfare