Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/551

 424

THE GREEN BAG

CARRIERS. (Right to be carried on Chartered Train.) S. C. — Among the perplexing questions arising as to the rights and liabilities- of carriers of passengers, one is found in Kirklaml v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., 60 S. E. Rep. 668, 79 P. C. 273, which is rather novel. Plaintiff boarded one of • defendant's trains at a regular station and ten dered the legal fare to his destination, claiming that the ticket office was not open in reasonable time to allow him to procure a ticket. His tender was refused by the conductor and a pay ment considerably larger demanded. Upon declining to pay the excess he was ejected. The testimony went to show that the train was one chartered for an excursion and that no tickets were sold for it or fares collected other than at the instance of the one chartering it. Plaintiff testified that he was ignorant of that fact, however, until near his destination and supposed it to be a regular train. The court held, following the case of Harmon v. Railway, 28 S. C. 401, 5 S. E. 835, 13 Am. St. Rep. 686, that the railroad could not, by charter, divest itself of duties to the public, and that not having in any way apprised plaintiff of the character of the train before entering, it was bound to carry him for the regular fare. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Delegation of Legislative Power.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — The federal safety appliance act of .March 2. 1893, 27 Stat., p. 531, c. 196 [U. S. Comp. St. 190, p. 3174] came before the United States Supreme Court for construction and determination as to its validity in St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1616. Section 5 of the act gave power to the American Railway Association to designate a standard height for drawbars on freight cars. It was contended that this was an unconstitutional delegation of power, but the Supreme Court, following the decision in Buttfield t>. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 48 L. Ed. 525, 24 Sup. Ct. 349, held the law valid. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Government by Commission). la. •—- The case of Eckerman v. Gity of Des Moines, 115 N. W. Rep. 177, is of excep tional interest from many points of veiw. The general assembly of Iowa recently provided means by which cities of a certain class might adopt a system of government modeled somewhat on the plan of that known as the Galveston System. The law provides for a main governing board consisting of a mayor and four councilmen, to be chosen at general election. Their powers and duties are exercised through a department of public works under direction of the mayor and four other departments, each under the supervision of one of the councilmen. A method of recall of officers after election is also provided. The

validity of the law was attacked from almost every conceivable standpoint. It Was claimed to violate the provision of the Constitution of the United States which guarantees a republican form of government to each state. It was alleged to be in contravention of the state constitu tion, Art. 3, 5 i. making distribution of govern mental functions and prohibiting the exercise by an officer of department of powers properly belonging to another; of Art. 3, § 30. forbidding incorporation of cities by special law; Art. i, § 6, providing that all laws of generalnature shall have uniform operation; Art. 3, § 20, relating to removal of officers; Art. 2, §i, granting and regulating the right of suffrage and Art. 3, § i, placing all legislative power in the general assembly. It would be useless to here attempt to set out in detail the points dis cussed in the thirty-two paragraphs of headnotes. Suffice it to say that the act was held valid as against every objection urged. These constitutional objections to " govern ment by commission " cannot be sustained, unless the particular form of government involves the breach of some special provision of a local constitution. The initiative and referendum, attacked as contrary to a republi can form of government, are a return to democratic government as practiced in New England, and constitutional. In re Pfahler, 150 Cal. 71. The other objections have in general no force. Com. v. Plaisted, 148 Mass% 375; Com. v. Moir, 199 Pa. 534. Occasionally some special provision of a local constitution will be violated by novel charter provisions. Rathbone v. Wirth, 150 N. Y. 459; Ex parte Lewis, 45 Tex. Cr. i. J.H.B. CORPORATIONS. (Issue of Stock.) Tex. Sup. Ct. — The meaning of Sec. 6 of Art. 1 2 of the state constitution of Texas was up for determina tion by the supreme court of that state in O'BearNester Glass Co. v. Antiexplo Co. et. al. 108 S. W. Rep. 967. A corporation was organized for the manufacture and sale of a compound manufac tured from an unpatented formula. The owners of the formula were granted a certain portion of of the stock of the corporation in exchange for the formula. Later the corporation became insolvent and the creditors sought to hold these stockholders liable for the debts of the corporation on the ground that they had not paid for their stock. Sec. 6 of Art. 12 of the constitution referred to above provided that no corporation should issue stocks or bonds except for money paid, labor done or property actually received. The court stated that the purpose of this provi •