The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-06-19
Continued from page Ons.)
MR.. TIEPKES BRIEF.

Mr.. Tiepke's main points were as fol-
lows:
Chapter 1904 OF the Public Laws is not
unconstitutional because: IL IL a valid
exercise OF the power reserved TO the
legislature to amend or repeal acts of
Incorporation. IL Is q valid exercise OF
the police power of the state. The pass
age OF this act was a valid exercise OF
the power reserved to the legislature 10
amend or repeal acts OF Incorporation.
The right
The right to amend acts Of incorpora-
tion Is reserved In Rev Stat, Chap. l26.
Sec. ID; Gen. Stat. Chap. i@. Sec. IL:
Pub Stat, Chap. ib2. Sec. II; Gen. Laws.
Chap. III, Sec e.
The first authority cited Is Mr.. Justice
Rogers. who says In State VS.. Brown g.
Sharpe Mfg. Co. Is X. l.. l6. at page &;
but for the power granted by the legis-
lature, corporations could not make any
contract and we see no reason why the
legislature under it's reserved power to
amend charters cannot limit the power
10 contract In the future. just as they
might have fixed IL In the original charter.
II any reasonable purpose Is 10 be sub
served thereby
In State VS. Brown g. Sharpe Mfg. Co,
chapter 9lS OF the Public Laws, known
as the Weekly Payment Law" was held
10 be within the reserved power OF the
sonableness was concerned. In arriving
at this conclusion the court applied the
rule laid down by Mr.. Justice Swayne In
Shields VS.. Ohio, 8, L, 8. 3l9. at page
324 where he says: THE power OF alter
alton and amendment Is not without
limit. The alterations must be reasona-
BILE: they must be made In good faith. and
be consistent with the scope and object
OF the act OF incorporation" The OhiC
legislature altered the price per mile TO
be charged by a railroad company for
transportation OF passengers, thus inter-
fering with the right given 70 the com
pany 10 make its own charges. The court
held that the legislature under its re-
served power might reasonably make
such alterations.
TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES.
Chapter 1904 was passed by the legis
lature for the obvious purpose OF pro-
tecting the health of employees OF street
railway corporations and insuring greater
safety 10 the travelling public, who are
otherwise exposed 10 many dangers aris-
ing from depleted strength and consequent
lack OF vigilance OF those who actually
operate cars.
The rule is general with reference 10 the
enactments OF all legislative bodies that
the courts cannot inquire into the mo-
tives of the Legislators In passing them.
except as they may be disclosed on the
face OF the acts, OF inferrible from their
operation. considered with reference 10
the condition Of the country and existing
legislation. The motives OF the legislators,
considered as TO the purposes they had
in view. will always be presumed 10 be
accomplish that which follows as the nat
ural and reasonable effect OF their enact
ments.
AS TO PROPERTY RIGHTS.
II is asked whether the provisions OF
Chapter 1904 invade any privileges or
property rights guaranteed under the
Constitution OF Rhode Island.
II was decided In State vs. Brown *
Sharpe. that the power TO contract. grant
ed In the charter OF corporation was
not such property OF a corporation as
cannot be taken away without compen-
sation by the General Assembly within
the exercise OF its reserved power. Fur
thermore, IL cannot be said that this act
is unconstitutional as interfering with the
rights Of employees TO make contracts with
street railway corporations.
This objection was raised when Il was
sought to declare the Weekly Payment
Law" unconstitutional, and Mr.. Justice
Rogers said, But corporations are arti-
fetal bodies and possess only such pow
ers as are granted to them, and natural
persons dealing with them have no right
TO demand that greater power should be
granted to corporations in order that
they may make other contracts with
such corporations than the corporations
are authorized to enter into"
NOT CLASS LEGISLATION.
Mr. Tiepke urges as Judge Rogers de-
cided in the case above noted that as the
act applies TO all corporations OF the same
class 1t is not class legislation and that
the amendment Is a valid exercise OF the
power reserved TO the General Assembly
to amend charters OF It's creatures and
any constitutional provisions which II Is
claimed the act before the court violates
can have no application.
AS to the act being valid exercise OF
the police power OF the state. Mr.. Tiepke
cites Lord Hale. some 200 years back, TO
the effect that where one devotes his
property to a use In which the public has
an interest he in effect grants TO the pub
lie an interest In that use, and must
submit TO be controlled by the public for
the common good TO the extent OF the In
terest thus created. lie may withdraw
his grant by disseminating the use; but
so long as he maintains the use he must
submit TO the control. To the same
point Is the following citation from the
decision OF the Federal Supreme court in
Union VS.. People,"
For our purposes We must assume
that, IL state OF facts could exist that
would justify such legislation, II actually
did exist when the statue now under con-
sideration was passed. For US the ques
tion Is one OF power. not expediency. II
no state OF circumstances could exist to
justify such q statue, then we may de-
clare this one void. because In excess Of
the legislative power OF the state. But
II II could. we must presume II did. OF
TIC propriety OF legislative interference
within tho scope OF legislative power. the
legislature is the exclusive Judge"
AS COMMON CARRIER.
Mr.. Tiepke quotes further from this
opinion In sustaining the principle of
control and says that the act In question
may be sustained as one regulating the
conduct OF the business OF a common
carrier OF passengers: business In wNx.rh
the whole public has a direct and posi-
tie interest.
A history OF the rapid growth and pres