Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/496

 488 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Field, also speaking for the • court, was even more explicit when, in Tomlinson v. Jessup, Id. 459, he said, 'the reserva- tion aiïects the entire relation between the state and the corporation, and places under legislative control ail rights, privileges and immunities derived by ita charter directly from the state.' And again, as late as Railroad Company v. Maine, 96 U. S. 610, 'by the reservation the state retained the power to alter it (the charter) in ail particulars constituting the grant to the new company, formed under it, of corporate rights, privileges, and immunities.' Mr. Justice Swayne, in Shields v. Oliio, 95 U. S. 324, says, by way of limitation: 'The alterations must be reasonable; they must be made in good faith, and be consistent 'with the scope and object of the act of incorporation. Sheer oppression and wrcng can- not be inflicted under the guise of amendment or altera- tion.'" �In his dissenting opinion in thia case, Mr. Justice Field< reprodu(!es and explains the language used by him in Tom- linson V. Jessup, and Railroad Company v. Maine. He says : "The object of a reservation of this kind, in acta of incorpo- ration, is to insure to government control over corporate franchises, rights and privileges which, in its sovereign or legislative capacity, it may call into existence, not to interfere with contracts which the corporation, created by it, may make. Such is the purport of our language in Tomlinson v. Jessup, where we state the object of the reservation to be 'to prevent a grant of corporate rights and privileges in a form which will preclude legislative interference with their exercise, if the public interest should at auy time require such inter- ference; ' and 'that the reservation aiïects the entire relation between the state and the corporation, and places under leg- islative control ail rights, privileges, and immunities derived hy its charter directly from the state.' 6 Wall. 354. The same thing we repeated, with greater distinctness, in R. Company v. Maine, where we said that ' by the reservation the state retained the power to alter the act incorporating the Company in ail particulars constituting the grant to it of cor- porate rights, privileges, and immunities;' and that 'the exist- ��� �