Year: 1879

| IMAM Eas Scuefdliy Dtth SlFth y" INV ''


crate opinion of Mr.. Justice Field, OF the
United States Supreme Court. in the case OF
THE Central Pacific Railroad Company el
AL, appellants, against Albert GaIiatl"'
This opinion is a remarkably forcible state
mont of the question pending in that case he-
tween the United States and the Centrai
Pacific Company, and it sets forth the rights
and duties of the Company and OF the Gov
ernment with singular cearness. We confess
that the reasoning in support OF the decision
of the majority docs not seem To have been
presented as yet with equal force.


The question at Issue was MS TO the validity
of the Act of May Z, 1878, known as
the Thurman Act, q by which it was pro-
vided that the whole OF the compensa-
ton for transportation of Government supplies
and troops should be retained, and that %
per cent Of the net earnings of the Company
should be paid into the Treasury, both to he
applied toward the payment of the bonds
issued in aid of the Company. Almost every
body will say at first blush it is probable,
that the corporation in question, having been
created and enormously benefited by the Gov
crnmcnt, ought to be subjected to any pro-
visions deemed necessary by Congress for the





by the Government. But the Central Pacific
was and is a corporation created by the laws
of the State of California, and, unlike the
Union Pacific it does not owe existence or
support TO United States enactment. There
has been great deal of confusion oil reason
issg as to these two roads, which MIR. Justice
Field endeavors to remove by his statement.
The Central Pacific was chartered by Cali
fornia and all its relations with the Govern
ment, Judge Field holds. are those OF simple
contract. The Government offered TO pay the
Company certain sums, and 10 give 1t certain
aid. if it would build road to connect with
the Union Pacific, and it fully performed its
part Of the compact. Now the United States
alters the terms of the contract, both IN de-
manding retention of the whole OF the COM
pensation, instead of one half, as was origi-
nally stipulated, and in requiring payment
of % per cent of the gross earnings INTO a
sinking fund. These changes. Mr.. Field main
tains. were unwarranted. unconstitutional ana
inequitable.


Ii is evident that the United States ought
to be governed in dealing with any corpora
ton whatever, where its relations are those
of simple contract. by the same conditions
and restraints which would exist between
two individuals. The legislative authority
has no power to construe or interpret
contracts made by itself that is
judicial function which can be prop
erly discharged only by the courts,
whether the matter affects n corporation or
a person. If the Government can change its
contract in one respect it can i'll any other,
and it follows that no bargain can be made
10,
Repudiators have insisted upon this but men
of sound mind have not pretended, except as
to railroad corporations, that the Government
bound itself to nothing. and that the other
party only was held by the bargain


If the Government can take the use of any
part of the money OF the Company, otherwise
than as the original contract provides, it can
take any other part. Judge Field urges that
this is virtually taking private property for
public use without due process OF law, and
we confess we do not how he can be
satisfactorily answered. The opinion is en-
riched on this and other points, with elabO-
rate citations. 1t is held, too. that the Gov
ernment has 10 power TO impair the obllga-
ton of compacts. and very forcible quotation
fror, Alexander HamiltOn's works is given,
ending thus Ii is. i'll theory, impossible to
reconcile the two ideas Of promise rhich
obliges with power TO make q iaT rhich can
ra,y the effect Of it,"


Finally, it is urged that the Central Pacific
Company is row subject to the Legislature of
California, which claims the power to regulate
fares and freights, and thus to limit its income.
Yet the United States, in the Act under con-
sideratiOn, asserts power utterly inconsist-
ent with any control whatever by the State.
This corporation, it must not be forgotten,
holds It's franchises from the State. and within
reasonable limits can unquestiOnably be held
subject to State authority but how can it be
supposed to be subject in the same way to
another and different authority, having power
at the same time to limit its earnings aisOi
The principles involved In this case ought
to be very carefully studied by Republican
statesmen. They are stated with rare ability.
on one side, by the opinion which has been
quoted, and it will hardly answer for the Re-
publican party to put itself in the position
of justfying any breach of public con-
tracts. even though the persons affected thereby
are the stockholders of powerful corpora
ton. Justice does not have one law for the
rich and another for the poor. Republicans
ought to be very careful that they do not
commit themselves to doctrines which might
seem to Repudators or Greenback men a war
rant for a breach of contracts with public
creditors. Judge Field has been mentioned
by Democrats not infrequently, as possible
candidate for the Presidency. and it would
not be very pleasant for Republicans to find
themselves obliged, in the next campaign, to
denounce legislation in violation of public
contracts with banking corporations, but at
the same time to defend legislation in risre-
gard of public contracts with railroad corpo-