Idaho Springs siftings., 1905-04-29
BILL CONSTITUTIONAL
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION.
House Bill t7a, Known as Railroad
Merger Bill, Held Not to Be in vio-
la'ion Of Constitution of Colorado.


ia'ion Of Constitution of Colorado.
Denver April 25.-House Bill IFS.
known as the Colorado & Southern ex
pahslon measure. is pronounced con
stltuuonal by Attorney General Miller
in an opinion which went TO Governor
mcdonald late last evening. The gov
erhor VIII probably take some action
on tAe bill today.
After quoting the fun text OF the bill
General hiller's opinion runs;
When the eonstitutionaiity If a Les
gis!atve act is attacked in court by an
appropriate proceeding the rule OF con.
strnotlon is laid down by Judge Cooley
10 be as folsws;
II has been said by an eminent
jurlst that when courts are called upon
10 pronounce the inyalidity of an ac
OF les!slatlon passed with all the forms
and ceremonies requisite to give it the
force OF law. they will approach tho
question with great caution. examin-
ing it ia every possible aspect. and
ponder upon it as long as deliberation
AM patient attention can throw any
ne| Light upon the subject and never
de' are a statute void unless the nullity
anc nvaiidity OF the act are placed, in
thelT Judgment. beyond reasonable
doett \ reasonable doubt must be
solEel in favor of the legislative action
an she act be sustained
SeCuen 2 OF the bill reads as fol-
low
This act shall not be construed
to permit any railroad company TO
pE base or lease any parallel and
competing line situated within tho
state
our constitution provides as follows
In -tlion .. article XIV.
No railroad corporation nor the
lez5sls or managers thereof shall con
so-iate lis stock. property or fran
ch-sfs with any other railroad corpora
tiCa owning or having under its control
. parallel or competing line.
lH nay judgment this provision Of
The constitution IS TO be given ths
br0aiest and most comprehensive in
terrFetation. with view OF prohibiting
the merging OF railroads which are at
al competing.
e bslleve the principle Is We'll set
tiei That section is mere surplusage.
am hat the constitution governs
Fr1t IS Pheiner Is Colo 33s.
III is claimed that the bill violates
tn following provision OF the constt
UHHn. The General Assembly shall
no. pass local or special laws in any OF
the following enumerated cases. that Ia
to say etc. Colorado Constitution.
Al ", Sec. %.
The first objection raised under
tho two provisions Is that the bill
Authorizes the issuance OF stock by
Special law and not by general Law ap-
pieable TO all railroads under all cir
cumstanees. Magoun Us. Illinois Tr.
q S b.. 100 Z. 5. 2S3. Kentucky Rail
road Tax Cases. 1t5 L. 5. 32l. 337; (;
EAHes VS. Illinois. lsS U. s %.
Generally it has been held that a
statute which only requires the same
=. ans and methods TO be applied im-
partiality 10 all constituents Of a class.
so that the law shall operate equally
and uniformly upon all persons under
similar circumstances is not obnoxious
20 these constitutional provisions.
1T would not be unconstitutional TO
PASS a law in the state of Colorado
which applies 10 cities of more than
100000 in population. when 1t is well
known az the time Of the passage Of
he law that there was only one city
in the state 10 which it could be appli-
cable.
..The second objection raised to the
bill. under section 8 aforesaid. is that
he 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. 4s1. NJ. A s.
While this statute relates to cor
porations generally. yet. If 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 for
property.
''It is also claimed that the bill VIC
lates section p of article v. of the
constitution. This provision concerns
the titles of bills and prohibits the Il
tie from containing more than one sub
jeet IL was claimed in the oral argu
ment that the expression any corpora
ton intended moro than railroad and
transportation companies However.
II we read each sentence In which the
expression any corporation occurs. we
find that It is followed by words which
in each case restrict its application to
railroad companies. The use of the cx-
preston other line OF railroad In the
last paragraph Of this section shows
clearly that only railroads are under
consideration.
Section .. 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 ms-
iority of the stock first obtained at
meeting held after at least thirty days
notice, given in pursuance of law
This constitutional provision must