The Elbert County tribune., 1905-04-27
BILL CONSTITUTIONAL
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION.
House Bill t7s. Known as Railroad
Merger Bill, Held Not to Be in Vo-
lation Of Constitution Of Colorado.


known as the Colorado & Southern ex-
pansion measure. is pronounced coz
stitutional by Attorney General Miller
in an opinion which went to Goveruor
Mcdonald late last evening. The gov
ernor will probably take some action
on the bill today.
After quoting the fun text OF the bill
General Miller's opinion runs:
When the constitutionality II a Lee
gislative act is attacked in court by at7
appropriate proceeding the rule OF con
struction is laid down by Judge Cooley
to be as follows:
1T has been said by an emineus
jurist that when courts are called upon
to pronounce the invalidity OF an ae<
OF legislation. passed with all the forms
and ceremonies requisite to give II the
force of law. they will approach tho
question with great caution, exHmin-
ing 1t In every possible aspect, and
ponder upon It as long as deliberations
ard patient attention can throw any
new light upon the subject and never
declare statute void unless the nuIIity
and invalidity OF the act are placed, In
their judgment. beyond reasonable
doubt. A reasonable doubt must be
solved in favor of the legislative action,
and the act be sustained
Section 2 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:
No railroad corporation nor the
lessees or managers thereof shall con
solidate It's stock. property or fran
chises with any other railroad corpora
ton owning or having under its eon.roy
a parallel or competing line
In my judgment this provision Of
the constitution is to be given tho
broadcast and most comprehensive In
depreciation. with a view Of prohibiting
the merging OF railroads which are at
all competing
Il believe the principle Is well set
tied that section is mere surplnsage,-
and that the constitution governs
Frost VS.. Pheiffer 26 Colo. S3S.
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 IL
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 APP
plicable to all railroads under ali cir
cumstances. Magoun VS.. Illinois Tr.
& S. b.. 10 U. S. 2S3; Kentucky Rail-
road Tax Cases. lis U. s. 32i, 35Tc
Billings VS.. Illinois, 1888 u. S. 81.
Generally 1t has been held that g.
statute which only requires the same
"a md mn hf,l lie tn, lA a ftxt-
Partially to all constituents of 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 a law in the state of Colorado
which applies to cities OF more than
100000 in population, when 1t is well
known at the time of the passage OF
the law that there was only one city
in the state to which 1t could be appIi~
cable.
"The second objection raised to the
bill. under section . 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 or
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. $50, NJ. a. s.
while this statute relates to cor
porations generally. yet, IL share of
stock in mercantile company or ~
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 Tor
property.
ct Is also claimed that the bill vfo-
lates section n of article " OF the
constitution. This provision concerns
the titles Of bills and prohibits the IL
tie from containing more than one sub
ject. 1t was claimed in the oral argu-
ment that the expression any corpors~
ton intended more than railroad ana
transportation companies However
il we read each sentence In which the
expression any corporation occurs, We
find that 1t is followed by words which
in each case restrict its application to
railroad companies. The use of the ez-
preston other line OF railroad in tfse
last paragraph Of this section shows
clearly that only railroads are under
consideration.
Section 0. 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 a ma
jority of the stock first obtained NJ a
meeting held after at least thirty days
notice, given In pursuance OF law
This constitutional provision muss
govern when any corporation under
takes to increase its stock. A reading
OF the final provision of this bill rega5-
ing to the increase of stock fails to dts-
close any nroviefon for tho rnoupov ~