Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1921-04-25
n, Gcnrcc HrNnn. .

IVY George BRYAN.
Tho dust OF n former citizen OF Rich
mond. John Marshall by name. some
time Chief Justice OF the United
states. must have stirred uneasily on
winds which blow over the simple
grave in old Shockoc Cemetery wills
pcrcG that the decisions OF the SUI
nTcinc Court Of tho United States in
SturE,s V. Crowninshcild. and i'm the
Dartmouth College case had been re-
rorscd-ant by the usual vote in mi
court 10 four.
Tho Dartmouth College case. saws
former senator b.veridge. in his bio
sraphy OF Chicf Justice Marshall.
tional oNpositions which make his
toric the February. 1919. term of the
Snpremc Court Of the United states.
Thst pr"nouncement. like that in the
bankruptcy case. had to do with the
stability of contract. Both were
:vow;.is that STATE Legislatures cam
lncntS. whether in the form OF en-
gnEcments between individuals or
franchises 10 corporations Both
were meant To check the epidemic or
Tcpudiatory legislation which for
three years had been sweeping over
the land. and was increasing in virul-
eHce when Marshall prepared them"
Important Consequences Involved.
The North American Review for 1920.
is quoted by MIR. Beveridge as saying
Of the Dartmouth College case. per
laps no judicial proceedings in this
country ever involved more import
ant consequences" and John Fiskc.
the historian. that lit is the legiti-
mate business of government to sec
that contracts are fulfilled. that
charters are kept inviolate. and the
foundations of human confidence not
Iudcly or wantonly disturbed" In
Sturres V. Crownlnsheild the SUI
prcnc Court held that the Federal
government alone can grant a dis
charge in bankruptcy and that Il State
Insolvency statute purportinS to re-
lievc a debtor upon surrender of his
assets impairs the obligation of con
tracts and is void.
The Dartmouth College case con-
ccrncl briefly an attempt by the
. i%giS'a ,, Of New liampshire to
which had been granted it's trustees
in 1863 by John Wentworth. royal
Governor of the Province of New
That this charter was n contract. the
obligations of which the Legisia; urc
Of TIE state was forbidden by the
Federal Constitution to impair
Opinion OF Nr. Justice Holmes.
The same court on Wednesday last
held in two cases that the obligation
OF contract In the form OF lease
between landlord and tenant may be
not only impaired. but destroyed by
an act of Congress or of State Leg
is!aturG declaring that in certain
the stipulated term may be extended
and that only Il flair rent" not that
agreed, upon by the parties. can be
exacted; Mr.; Justice Holmes, dcliv-
crinE the opinion of the court, said:
The general proposition to be
lmntntained Is that eircumstanees
IN The District of Columbia with Il
public interest so great as TO justify
regulation by law. :"
lie pointed out that police powers
had been invoked in several cities TO
limit the height OF buildings. ana to
that extent had interfcrcd with prop
erty rights. The supreme Court had
also held in suits involving the main
tcnancc of watersheds and in phases
OF the insurance business that public
interest might require limitation
OF property rights.
we do not perceive any reason for
denying that Justification held good
in the foregoing cases" he continued
ito a law limiting rights OF real
quircs that"
Must Yield to EFFICIENCY.
In word. the court holds that pri-
Hate contracts must yield 10 wha; a
legislature. state or national, shall
declare 10 he public cXiScncy. In an
other portion of the opinion. it is
said: "Contracts are made subject TO
this exercise OF Tie power Of thu
state, when otherwise justified AS we
have held this To be" MIR. Justice
McKcnni. dissenting. quotes this Ian
Buagc in italics. adding SarcasticalIy.
the Italics are ours and We estimate
them by the cases that are cited in
their explanation ana support That
is 10 say he considers the authorities
cited altogether inadequate 70 sup
port the proposition quoted
The dissenting opinion, in which
the CHIEF Justice. Mr.. Justice McRcy-
nolds and Mr.. Justice Van Dcvcntcr
united. is strong, pungcnt and sUg-
gcstivc of the style OF Marshall HIM
self lie says, among other things.
The grounds of>disscnA are the cN-
plcit provisions Of" the Constitution
Nof the United States. the spcciiica-
t,cns Of the grounds are the irr"siSti-
bic deduct ions from those provisions,
and, we think. would require no cN-
preston but for ;hc opposition of
those whose judgment challenges at
tention.
The national government. 10y tho
nth amendment 10 the CpnStitE-
tion, and the states by the four