Gilpin observer., 1905-04-27
BILL CONSTITUTIONAL
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION
House Bill 1873, Known as Railroad
Merger Bill, Held Not to Be in VIC
lation Of Constitution Of Colorado.

lation OF Constitution OF Colorado.
Denver, April 25.-House Bill 17S,
known as the Colorado & Southern ex-
pansion measure. is pronounced con-
stitutiOnal by Attorney General Miller
in an opinion which went to Governor
Mcdonald late last evening. The gov
ernor will probably take some action
on the bill today.
After quoting the full text Of the bill
General Millers opinion runs:
when the constitutionality IL Les
gislasive act Is attacked in court by am
appropriate proceeding the rule OF con-
struction is laid down by Judge Cooley
to be as follows:
"It has been said by an eminent
jurist that when courts are called upon
to pronounce the invalidity of an acc
OF legislation, passed with ali the forms
and ceremonies requisite to give it the
force of law. they will approach the
question with great caution, examin-
ing it in every possible aspect, and
ponder upon it as long as deliberations
and patient attention can throw any
new light upon the subject and never
declare statute void unless the nullity
and invalidity of the act are placed, in.
their judgment, beyond reasonable
oOupt. "A dOuDI Lhuot ~
solved in favor of the legislative action
and the act be sustained
Section of the bill reads as fol-
lows:
This act shall not be construed
to permit any railroad company to
purchase or lease any parallel and
competing line situated within the
state
Our constitution provides as follows
in section 5, article XIV:
mo railroad corporation nor the
lessees or managers thereof shall con-
solidate its stock. property or fran
chises with any other railroad corpora
tion owning or having under its control
parallel or competing line
in my judgment this provision of
the constitution is to be given the
broadcast and most comprehensive in
depreciation. with view of prohibiting
the merging of railroads which are at
all competing
Il believe the principle is well set
and that the constitution governs
Frost VS.. Pheiffer. &c Colo. 33S.
1T is claimed that the bill violates
the following provision of the consti-
tuition: The General Assembly shall
not pass local or special laws in any OF
the following enumerated cases, that ia
to say etc. Colorado Constitution
Art. ", Sec. 25.
The first objection raised under
these two provisions is that the bill
authorizes the issuance of stock by
special law and not by general law ap--
plicable to all railroads under all cir
cumstances. Magoun VS.. Illinois IT,.
& S. B., 40 U. S. 2S3; Kentucky Rail-
road Tax Cases. lis U. S. 321, 337-
Billings VS.. Illinois, 1873 U. S. 81.
Generally it has been held that q
statute which only requires the same
means and methods to be applied inn
partiality to all constituents of a class
so that the law shall operate equally
and uniformly upon all persons under
similar circumstances is not obnoxious
to these constitutional provisions.
1T would not be unconstitutional to
pass law in the state of Colorado
which applies to cities of more than
100000 in population, when IL is well
known at the time of the passage OF
the law that there was only one city
in the state to which it could be applL
cable.
''The second objection raised to the
bill, under section 8 aforesaid, Is that
the issuance of stock in exchange for
stock is in violation of the provision
which limits the issuance Of stock to
for labor done, services performed OF
property actually received and de-
clares that all fictitious increase Of
stock shall be void Our Legislature
has declared: The shares of stock
shall not be less than one dollar nor
more than one hundred dollars each,
and shall be deemed personal prop
erty.' Sec. 4S0, NJ. A. S.
while this statute relates to corr
porations generally, yet, if a share Of
stock in a mercantile company or a.
mining company is property, then, OF
course, a share of stock in a railroad
company is property, and, therefore,
the issuance of one share of stock to
another is the issuance of stock foE
property.
1T is also claimed that the bill vio-
lates section 81 of article v. of the
constitution. This provision concerns
the titles of bills and prohibits the t.
tie from containing more than one sub.
ject. 1t was claimed in the oral argu-
ment that the expression any corpora
ton intended more than railroad and
transportation companies. However,
If we read each sentence in which the
expression any corporation occurs, We
find that it is followed by words which
in each case restrict it's application to
railroad companies. The use of the ex-
preston other line of railroad in the
last paragraph of this section shows
clearly that only railroads are under
consideration.
Section Q, article XIV, further pro
vides that the stock of corporations
shall not be increased except in pur-
suance of general law. nor without the
consent of the persons holding ma
jority of the stock first obtained at q
meeting held after at least thirty days
notice, given In pursuance of law.
This constitutional provision must
govern when any corporation under