The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-02-05

and to require il to keep going on in
| definitely furnishing service and supplies.
Would not an action for damages be a
complete and adequate remedy on behalf
| Of party who might be wrongfully re-
/ fused the use OF a telephone? The court
obtains no additional power in this drec-
| ton by virtue Of the act in question. II
/ imposes no new duty or power on the de-
| PENDANT. but only deprives It of its power
| TO charge beyond the maximum rates to be
| thereafter received The bill does not
state case. and the evidence fails to
show case, where irreparable injury
would be done the compliments by per-
[ hitting the defendant to remove its tele-
! phone from the compliments office. The
ayerment is that their business will be
greatly interrupted and injured. and they
I viii be put to loss, annoyance and EN-
! baTrassment. for which they will have no
adequste remedy at law" There is no
| ayerment that the defendant is insOivent,
or that Che injuries to be sustained by the
complainants would be irreparable.
The complainants could still conduct
tseir 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 il damage was sustained by
the wrongful refusal Of the defendant to
I connect them with the exchange could il
not be ascertained and recovered in an &C
ton 81 law? There are questions which
indicate grounds for refusing the iniunc-
ton and Diminishing the BILL e seems TO
me. based on the want of jurisdiction and
absence or 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 ''to 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 20 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
SLlte can do The exclusive legislation it
is authorized to exercise over this District
me- rs only legislation exclusive Of any
state. That is, no State shall have any
right or power whatever to legislatc r
tie territory constituting the scar OF tie
National Government. Persons ressd ne
and doing business here. however, are just
as safely protected in their rights Il tIiaI
By jury. their freedom Of speech. their
right Of petition. their right 10 be se-uIe
IN their persons. houses. papers. and ef-
iects against Unreasonable searches ard
seizures, the right to be not deprived q
life, liberty, or property without due pre-
cess OF law, and the right TO have Tri-
waite property not taken for public e
without just compensation, as are the citi-
zens OF the States. This prOteCtiol is guar
anteed by the first ten Amendments 10 the
Constitution. which are limitations upon the
power Of Congress. and no. 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. 10 is not 20 De iu-
terred or presumed from that language
that Congress can do So There is NO eN-
press power given it 90 DO so. and noa.
can be implied except in case where IL
is given express power 20 legisiate upon
certain subject. in which case this power
10 lCgislate cannot be defeated by the fact
that IL must incidentally or necessarily
impair the obligation of contracts. Some
OF such cases are those relating TO bank
rupts. regulating the value of money. de
claring war. etc. BY the Tenth Amend
meut. the powers not delegated 10 the
United States by the Constitution nor
prohibited by it 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, IL is not authorized TO take
As lot for a public building. without Just
compensation. or BIS horse from his stable
and give IL 10 G, or TO deprive d Of his
contract OF lease by requiring him TO can
Gel the same. and surrender it 10 r with
out consideration. IT, however. by any
construction 10 can be said that Congress
is not prohibited by the express provisions
Of the tenth section OF Article I from
passing any Law impairiug the obligation
of contracts still it 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 10
be cOntended that Congress can arbitrarily
take this property right or contract in
vestment away without compensa ton
Can it, in the exercise of exclusive legis-
latiOn here impair a private contract. not
interfering with the power to legisIate on
a certain subject, any more than a State
Legislature can do so in a State Tn my
opinion, this question can only be an
sweTed in the negative.
The Value of Contracts
Such being the proper constructio-,. is
the law now under consideration repue-
nant to such provision2 On June 90. 1SeS.
the defendant. a corporation. but still
person within the meaning OF that
word as used in the Constitutions
decided many times by the Supreme Court
(Smyth VS. Ames. l6g L $. 522B-had
numerous contracts In force with private
persons, and with the District and General
Government on the faith Of which it was
justified in making expenditures and in
curing obligations. These contracts were
based on good and valuable consideration.
net against public policy. and were in
every sense legal They had been vOlun-
tarily made. were in writing. and were
duly signed. They had some time to run
before they could be terminated by either
Of the parties thereto. If said act could
be construed in no other way than as re-
lating to ard intended to be operative upon
said contracts. so as to relieve the con-
tracing parties from their obligations
therOunder / should have TO hold that it
was beyond the Legislative power.
But l do not think it is necessary to so
constTue it, or that it was so intended AT
any rate. it should be construed in such
way as to render it unobjectionable on that
ground IL such construction be possible.
The words are that from and after the
passage Of this act il shall be unlawful for
any person or any telephone company do
ing business In the District of Columbia TO
charge or receive more than $50" etc. The
words Ito charge" would seem to imply
some act to be thereafter done by the per
son or telephone company. some contract
to be thereafter made in which charges
would not necessarily apply to any lawful
pNisfinD contract in which tho cborc,,,. 49,.