Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/350

 320

The Green Bag

sion of the Supreme Court] expressly held that stock ownership by a railroad

Direct Government. Initiative and Referendum Unconstitutional. Texas.

company in a bona ﬁde corporation, irrespective of the extent of such owner ship, did not preclude a railroad company from transporting the commodities man ufactured, mined, produced or owned by

mously decided March 9 that the initia tive and referendum are unconstitutional.

such corporation, nothing in that con clusion foreclosed the right of the government to question the power of a railroad company to transport in inter state commerce a commodity manufac tured, mined, owned or produced by a corporation in which the railroad held

The Texas Court of Appeals unani

The case arose upon the violation of an ordinance regulating telephone rates in Dallas. The charter of Dallas both gives

the usual oﬂicials the usual powers to regulate public facilities, and adds that when such regulations are adopted by

the method of the initiative and refer endum they cannot be altered except

stock, and where the power of the rail

by a similar submission to the popular vote. The defendant violated such an

road company as a stockholder was used to obliterate all distinctions between the two corporations. That is to say, where

ordinance, and its validity was essential to the punishment of the telephone oﬂi

as to so commingle the affairs of both

cial who disregarded its terms. The Court said: — "Under our Constitution the prin

as by necessary effect to make such

ciple of making laws is that the laws

affairs practically indistinguishable, and therefore to cause both corporations to

are made by the people, not directly, but by and through their chosen repre sentatives. By the act under considera

the power was exerted in such a manner

be one for all purposes. . . . "Our duty is to enforce the statute,

tion this principle is subverted, and the

and not to exclude from its prohibitions things which are properly embraced within them. Coming to discharge this duty it follows, in view of the express prohibitions of the commodities clause, it must be held that while the right of a railroad company as a stockholder to use its stock ownership for the purpose

law is proposed to be made at the last by the vote of the people, leading inevi tably to what was intended to be avoided —confusion and great popular excite

ment in the enactment of the laws." Employers’ Liability.

Waiver of

Remedies at Law by Contract of Accident

Insurance 0r Beneﬁt—Freedom of Con of a bona ﬁde separate administration

of the affairs of a corporation in which it has a stock interest may not be denied, the use of such stock ownership in

substance for the purpose of destroying the entity of a producing, etc., corpora tion, and of commingling its aﬂairs in administration with the affairs of the railroad company, soasto make the two corporations virtually one, brings the rail road company so voluntarily acting as to such producing, etc., corporation within the prohibitions of the commodi ties clause."

tract may be Limited by Legislation De

priving such Contracts of Force —Legis lative Powers. U. S. An important point of employers' lia bility and workmen’s compensation legis lation was disposed of in Chicago, Bur lington é'Quincy R. R. Co. v. McGuire,

219 U. S. 549, decided by the United States Supreme Court Feb. 20. The question arose under section 2071 of the Iowa code, as amended in 1898, which

in substance provides that no contract restricting the liability of the employer