The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-04-09

--
charters which were granted to then
under old acts of State Leg
islatures These charters are, t,
all intcnts and purposes. con
tracts between the State and the
railroad company The Federal Gov.
ernmont he thinks has not the slight,
est warrant under the Constitution fol
taking over the contractual rights OF
the State or violating the rights re-
of the road. Where the state has stip-
ulated conditions on which railroad
company might issue new stock or Sc
curities, Senator Rayncr does not see
where the Federal Government could
atipulate other conditions.
The great precedent in the case, and
one which Senator Rayner discussed
at length, Is the famous Dartmouth
College case-one of the monumental
decisions of John Marshall and one of
dence This decision concerned the
contractual rights of The State in its
relations with Dartmouth College. The
| original charter OF the college had
I.been given by George III. In 1869, and
fixed the conditions under which trus-
tees might be elected to The college
board In 1916 the New Hampshire
Legislature modified this charter and
provided for the election of trustees
in a different manner Upon appeal to
the Supreme Court, after most mem
orable argument between Daniel Web
ster and William Writ. Chief Justice
Marshall declared that the State had
no right to modify the terms of the
ter was a contract between the Crown
and the authorities of Dartmouth Col
lege. AS a private corporation, the
college could not be compelled TO ac-
cept a revised charter except at it's
own volition. since the Constitution
preserved the right Of individuals in
contracts with the state.
OF course It will he answered in
reply to the obvious parallel between
this case and that of chartered rail-
road that railroad is different from
q college and that the Federal power
OF control over interstate commerce
carries with 1t an inherent right TO
stipulate the methods by which the
railroad company may issue stock.
This objection may be valid as far as
1t goes. but ii Will not cover the whole
ground. 1t might be possible for Con-
gress to stlpulate how railroad COM
pany should issue stock as an inter-
state corporation, but ii hardly seems
possible that Congress has the power
10 limit a company holding q charter
in one State from issuing stock on its
interstate business according to the
provisions of it's charter in that State.
a company might be compelled in this
way TO do thing In It's interstate
capacity which it could not be com
PEELED TO do in its interstate capacity.
The constitutionality of the bill isl
an important question, but the prin-
ciple upon which the bill is based is
even more important. Stripped of all
legal phraseology the bill provides
that the control of railroads, in prac-
tically every capacity shall be given
to the Federal government whenever
the railroads do interstate business.
This is but another blow at the States.
in that it takes away from them the
power to control corporations which
are of their own creation The rail
merce Commission, but it will be help
bought at the heavy price of states
rights-the principle upon which the
Government is founded and upon which
its security depends.