The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-05-03

established rates belong 70 the com
pany making them, and their value
may and should be included IN the
appraisal Of the property used IN every
:. It IS not against public policy. as
defined by the courts for public ser
wee corporations to permanently IN
vest undivided Profits earned under
statutory regulations and rates IN ex-
tensions. betterments, or surplus OF
any kind OF for any purpose. As 20
this proposition and the preceding one,
IN edition 10 the cases cited. / re-
specHuLy again refer you 10 this res
OluuCn Itself It Is an absolute and
unQual1ned subscription 10 the theory
that betteTments are subjects of cap
ttalization IN that 1t provides for their
capitalization by this company IN the
future II those that are 10 be in
SCALED during the coming year may
properly be capitalized, why not those
OF last year and so from year 70 year
back 70 the beginning
s. It IS not within the power OF
Congress to pass discriminatory laws.
thar Is 10 say, laws that in eject. deny
70 one person the protection granted
to others-a0 pesons- whether natural
or artificial, being equally guaranteed
by the Constitution IN the fun use
and enjoyment OF their property and
The sixth seventh, and eighth propo-
sitions. as above stated, are amply
covered by the cases ] have already
cited, nota bly, the Chic=go, Milwaukee.
and St Paul case; the case of Gibbons
VS.. Mahon- the case Of Williams VS.
Western Union, and the case Of PeO-
pie vs. OBrien-
Limits Company's Powers.
Finally. as to the constitutional point
involved, 1 beg 70 call the attention Of
the committee TO the fact that this reso-
luton IS not general statutory regu-
lation governing the internal admins
trauOn Of the company as to capitalize
ton, but a legal restriction and IirnIta-
H--@
not only clouds its title thereto in ef-
feet, but by limiting the company
power to meet its obligations alters.
Tmpairs. and pro tzntO EinvaIidstes its
I beg TO note what I omitted to note
when discussing Chicago. 8IflHa ukee.
and St Paul vs. Minnesota. that 1lr-
Justice Bradley oissented IN that case,
the decision In which. nevertheless.
survives and VIII ever stand. let Us
hope. az 3Gr. Blatchforiss monument
II IS alto true that Mr.. Lamar sym
pathiZed with M Bradley, both being
sensitive about states Rights and strict
construction dOgmas- In fact, Justice
Bradley says page $50, fnfsrenfiaIIy,
that ne would have stoo4 WITH The ~or.-f
had II been a Federal case arising IN
der the fifth amendment, and not q
state case, arising under the fourteenth
amendment For, says he The fifth
IS PTohibjuyes as 70 the Federal Gov
eminent only and not upon STATE GOV
erurne1ts In this naatter-just compen-
satIoh for property taken for public
use-the states make their own rez71Ia-
tons. BY state constitutions or ether
wise They are only required b. the
F1Ederal Constitution TO provide fs1e
process Of law Due process Of law
I may remark. Is the keynote. OF on
liberties 20 which all must tune their
hesTts-Efth which the Feder~- CousTf-
tuition permits no State to get into dis
cord, but IN matters within its oy-n
territory every State has the right and
this decision says 50. 70 reRuIa-a ~
general laws the internal n7anazsueut