Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1907-11-21
LAW UPHELD.
harmon, Supreme Court Holds Week
IN PAYMENT Act constitutional.

T
y Payment Act CONSTITUTIONS.
At the recent special session OF su-
preme court held at Rutland, an opinion
was given in the test case brought against
the Rutland Railroad company lnVoiNihg
the congtitutionality Of the weekly pay
rDent law. The court held that the ne"
law i constitutional. The opinion y
very lengthy one and the reading ps
Judge Rowell required an hour.
Here are some Of the chief points OF the
opinion , -
"Tbe defendants charter, granted IN
1857. nroyides that il shall be subject to
the action of any future legislature to
amend. alter or repeal as the public good
may require Before and at the time Oh
this grant. the general law was, ever since
has been. and still Is. TO the same effect,
as to all acts creating, continuing, alter
ing or renewing a corporation or booy
politic.''
Judge RowelI cited an opinion from
the United States supreme court to show
that state restrictions of the right OF GER
tain corporations to contract with regard
to payment of employees are constitution
al and that the legislature had power 10
alter and amend a charter as public good
might require.
1.-THE rule deducible from those deci-
sions, shortly stated, il substantially TINS,
we think:-That such a reservation
affects the entire relation between the
state and the corporation and places I'M
der legislative control all rights, priv
leges and immunities derived by its very
existence; but that rights and interests
acquired by the corporation not CONSTITUTE
ing a part of the contract of incorpors-
tion and so not derived directly from the
state. stand on different footing, and
are not thereby subjected TO Legislative
control"
He showed by illustration that the re-
auirements OF the weekly payment law
do not destroy nor sensibly encroach up
on the right to contract but only modify
that right. The court also held that the
act does not deprive the defendant OF lib
erty nor property in contrayentiOn OF the
fourteenth amendment, because il re-
quires payment in lawful money "for the
medium of payment is as much within
the scope Of the reserved power as the
time OF payment"
The opinion stated that the act does not
deny to the defendant the equal protec-
tion of the laws. While il does not in
clude all corporations doing business in
the state, it includes all of a particular
class.
As to the objection Of the defendant.
that the act is invalid because it restricts
the rights of the defendants employees
to contract with it. the court said
but the restriction of their right Il
not direct, but results from the restric
ton of the defendants rights; and that
restriction is good as TO the defendant,
the rights of its employees are not thereby
infringed, for they have no right TO de-
mand greater liberty for the defendant in
order that their liberty may be enlarged.
State ". Brown, etc, Mfg. Co, is X. l.,
10, L. r. A. $50. S64."
The court also held that the act does
not infringe upon the rights OF defend
ants stockholders. because the defend
ants stockholders modify their property
rights in the corporation by becoming
stockholders therein" for thereby they
must be taken to have assented to any
and all amendments OF the charter that
come within the reserved power"
In concluding the court said I've
hold. therefore, that the act in question
does not deprive the defendant, nor the
persons that compose it Of Liberty nor
property without due process Of law; nor
deny to them the equal protection Of the
laws; nor infringe any Of their property
rights declared by the constitution Of the
state. Judgment affirmed