Rocky Ford enterprise., 1905-04-28
BILL CONSTITUTIONAL
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION.
House Bill i7s. Known as Railroad
Merger Bill, Held Not 10 Be in vio-
IstIon Of Constitution Of Colorado.

lstlon Of Constitution OF Colorado.
Denver. April 25.-House Bill us.
known as the Colorado AZ Southern eS
pansion measure. is pronounced coz
stitutIonal by Attorney General Miller
in an opinion which vent TO Governor
Mcdonald late last evening, The gov
ernor Will probably take some action
on the bill to-day.
After quotisg the full text OF the bill
General Miller's opinion runs:
when the cOnstitutionallty II Les
gislatiye act Is attacked In court by al
appropriate proceeding the rule OF con
struetlon IL laid down by Judge Cooler
to be as folISWs:
1t has been said By an eminent
iur!st that when courts are called upon
TO pronounce the inyalidity ot an acc
OF legislation. passed with all the forms
and ceremonies requisite 10 give Il tho
force OF law. they Will approach the
question with great caution. examin'
ing Il in every possible aspect. and
ponder upon IL as long As delibeTat!on
and patient attention can throw any
new light upon the subject and never
declare n statute void unless the null!iy
and InvalldIty OF the act are placed, In
their Judgment. beyond reasonable
doubt. 4 reasonable doubt must be
solved in favor of the legislative action
and the act be sustained
Section . OF the bill reads a. fol-
lows:
This act shall not be construed
20 permit any railroad company TO
purchase or lease any parallel and
competing line situated within the
state
Our constitution provides as follows
in section ). article XIV:
NO railroad corporation nor the
lessees or managers thereof shall Goa
solldate It's stock, property or fran
chises with any other railroad corpora
tion owning or having under its control
Il parallel or competing line
In my Judgment this provision ut
the constitution Is TO be given the
broadest and most comprehensive In
terpreta,Ion. With a view OF prohibiting
the merging OF railroads which are at
all competing.
4 believe III. principle Is well set.
tied that section : L. mere surplnHASe.
and that the constitution goTcEls.
Frost v. Pheiffcr. &c Colo. 33s.
1T In claimed that the bill violates
the following provision OF the consi!-
tuition: The General Assembly shall
not pass local or special laws IN any Of
the following enumerated cases. tina; Ia
TO say etc. Colorado Constitution.
Art. v. Sec. 20.
The frEt 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 ali cir
cumstanccS. Magoun vs.. Illinois TT.
a 5. H.. 100 L. 5. 2s3: Kentucky Rail-
road Tax Cases. il5 U. :. 3?i. 33s:
Billings vs.. Illinois. iSs U. :. 81.
Generally Il has been held that n
statute which only requires the same
means and methods TO be applied i'm
partIality to all constituents OF 4 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 u law In the state Of Colorado
which applies to cities OF more than
100000 In population. when It is well
known at the time OF the passage of
the law that there was only one city
In the state to which II could be appli.
cable.
THE second objection raised 10 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
crty. Sec. isO. VI. a. S.
While this statute relates to cor.
poTations generally. yet. II a share OF
stock in a mercantile company or n
mining company is property. then. OF
course. n share of stock in n railroad
company is property. aad, therefore.
the issuance of one share of stock 10
another Is the issuance of stock for
property.
ut 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 III
tie from containing more than one sub.
ject. 1t was claimed in the oral aTgu.
ment that the expression any corpora
'tion' intended more 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 ex-
preston other line of railroad in the
last paragraph of this section shows
clearly that only railroads are under
consideration.
Section .. article Nv. further pro-
vides that the stock of corporations
shall not be increased except in pur-
suancc Of general law. nor without the
consent of the persons holding ma
jority of the stock first obtained at a
meeting held after at least thirty days
notice, given in pursuance Of law.