Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1907-11-14
Railroad Loses It's Test Case be.
fore the Vermont Supreme
Court.
OPINION BY JUDGE R0WELL.
Defendant Is Not Deprived Of Liberty
or Property, Is Not Denied Equal
Protcction--Rigbts under state
Constitution Not Iufringed
by Present Act.

Rutland, Nov. 12.-The Vermont SUI
prcme Court convened in special session
here this morning at ten o'clock It being
the first time the court has been held in
Rutland for a years. Chief Judge Row
ell. for the court. read an opinion in the
weekly payment test case, consuming an
hour Tho court held that the weekly
| payment law is constitutional.
The question as to the constitutionality
Of the matter was raised in tho case OF
Robert A. Lawrence. States attorney Of
the county Of Rutland vs.. the Rutland
Railroad company. which originated in
the Rutland city court The case was
brought and statement Of facts agreed
upon for the purpose OF making a test
case as to tho const.tutionality Of the
| law; both the railroad company and the
| State officials agreeing that it would be
! for the best interests Of the community
to have the question speedily disposed OF.
Acknowledgement G. g. Fits assisted In
| the preparation OF the case
| CHARTER MAY RE AMENDED
judge Rowcl IN his opinion said In
| part:
| THE question IS whether the weekly
| payment act Of December To- 1906 is con-
| stitutional The defendants
charter. granted in 1867, provides that
| II shall he subject TO the action Of any
| future lcEi<lat ure to amend alter or
repeal az the public good may require
Before and a the time of this grant
the general law was. ever since has
Neen, and stlll IS, to the same effect. as
to all acts creating continuing. alter
! Ing. or renewing corporation or body
polite.
"The questions arising under the fed
cral constitution will be first considered.
for their determination will largely dis
pos" of those arising under tho State
constitution. II is needless to say that
! on tho federal questions the decisions
or III" United States Supreme Court are
controlling,so We shall not go much out
side Of them"
COMEDIES WITH PAUL. CASE
Judge Rowell said that the casa under
consideration raised the same questions
which were raised in the Paul case under
the Arkansas statute in which the Uni
tod States Supreme Court held the Ar
kansas statute restricting the right o,
| certain corporations to contract with re-
gard 10 payment Of employees to be con-
stitutional. He further stated the opin-
ion of tho court that the weekly payment
act Of 1906 was within the power re-
served by the Loglslatu to alter. amend
or repeal the defendants charter as the
public good might require; that It did
not amount to deprivation Of property.
forbidden by the federal constitution.
because the act did not Interfere with
vested rights. existing contracts. nor
destroy, nor sensibly cncroach upon, the
right to contract. although II did impose
a duty in relation to the payment o.
wages actually earned that restricted fu-
ture contracts III the particular named
After discussing the opinions of the
United States supreme Court In the Paul
case and other cases. Judge Rowell said
SIMPLE RULE DEDUCTED.
Tho rule deduciblo from those de
cisions, shortly stated is substantially
this. we think: That such a reservation
affects the entire relation between III.
state and tho corporation and places un
der legislative control all rights pr
, vileges and immunities derived by II.
charter directly from the State. lnclud
ing its very existence; but that rights
and interests acquired by the corpora
ton, not constituting part OF the con
tract of incorporation, and 80 not deriv
ed directly from the State, stand on
different footing, and are not thercb,
subjected to Legislative control"
He showed by Illustrations and com
PARSONS with other cases, that tn,
weekly payment law comes within tn,
! reserved right to alter amend or repeal
as defined in this rule. Now does tina
requirement (the requirement OF tn,
weekly payment statute) destroy. no
sensibly encroach upon, the right to con
tract. but only mobiles that right
which is not absolute, but IS subject. ol
general principles, to such reasona BIZ
restraint as the public good may re
quire."
The court also held that tho act doe,
) not deprive the defendant OF libert,
il nor property in Contravention of IN,
fourteenth amendment. because il re
' quires payment in lawful money 70,
the medium of payment is as mucl
! within the scope of the reserved powe,
as the time of payment"
ALI. ITS CLASS INCLUDED
/ The court also said: Nor does III,
d, act deny to the defendant the coua
protection OF the laws. True, It doe,
% not include all corporations doing bus
D mess in tho state; but it includes al
. Of the particular class to which thu
Q defendant belongs, namely, all rail
road corporations, and all other trans
portation corporations, and all tele
graph. and telephone, corporations
and all Incorporated express companie
q and perhaps some other public -servic'
. corporations. But II Is not necessar!
g to its validity that II should INCLUDE
6 all corporations doing business in IN
- state: for although class legislation
q, discriminating against some and favor
a ing others, is prohibited, yet specil
legislation does not contravene tn
&C equality clause OF the fourteenth
= amendment, If. within the sphere o
n its operation, all persons within IL
provisions are treated alike in Xix
3. circumstances and conditions. Haye
. ~. Missouri 100 L. :. GS. -. Missouri
= Pacific Railway co. VS. Mackay, l27 L
g s 2o5
The court held, following the decision
in the Rendering company case. recentl
handed down, that, foreign corporation
doing business in this State are as niue
amenable to the weekly payment law n
domestic corporations, and therefore, tn
m domestic corporations were not discrimi
" mated against
ENPI OWES RIGHTS INTACT.