0 MIN LOONTINUEDIYBOX FIRST Pula] Mark you sir,it is wholly immaterial whether this enc . roaphment upon private rights; this ty ranny, is to be exercised by one tyrant who may call himself emperor, k inn, despot, anything, or whether it be exercised by a, multitude of tyrants, assuming to act in the cpacity of leg islators. lam contending against a dangerotis innovation. In every law book which can be consulted on this question—in every comthen tory upon constitutional lenv--this doctrine is invariably held, that these insidious encroach ments by one department of the government upon another, are dangerous to liberty and are to be moat carefully and assiduously watched and restrained. Now, sir, whatever may be the aspect of this question—whether you repeal this law or whether you do not—the question comes back, again at i last to the jurisdiction of the court. You can- I not avoid the court. The suggestion was made here by the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Waizasta,)' upon the last argument on the bill, that the doctrine of presumptions entered largely into the question—that the law of 1881 was presumed to be constitutional and that the same presumption would follow this law, and that when it came before the court it would "have the presumption in its favor." Now, who ever before heard of arguing a constitu tional question upon presumption? How idle —how perfectly idle! Presumptions in regard to a constitutional question! Why, sir, pre sumptions hold no place in the argument—not the slightest. A. constitutional question - when once raised(and it matters not ho w it comes before the Court)bas no presumption about it that can affect the interpretation. A presuniption fol lows the act just so far thatprrmafacie it is con stitutional ; but when it comes before the court for adjudication, presumptions hame A no Place whatever ; it bec omes solely and.purely a question of constitutional interpretation. Mr. WILLIAMS. Does the gentleman assert that the law, when brought before the court, ceases to be prima facie constitutional ? Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir. It does not cease to be prima facie constitutional. The gen tleman knows that just as well as I do ; and he knows just as well that when an act of Assem bly comes before the court, for judicial inter pretation, it comes there upon its merits, and the court determines the interpretation of the Oonstitution as applied to that act of Assembly, totally irrespective of presumptions. I would ask the gentleman whether they do not. Mr. w rT.LIJUSIS made a gesture of dissent. Mr. ARSISITIONG. Then I take lame with the gentleman and every lam , book that he ever read, and all he ever can read, will bear me . out in this position. Let him produce one single authority, big, little or indifferent, and I will submit. It cannot be donee lam not here for the purpose of tossing my feeble reiteration against that of the gentleman from Allegheny, by way of asseveration as to what is the law.— I some here and read the law from admitted constitutional authorities—the solemn decisions of the ablest judges the country has produced, and who have given to this question the very highest efforts of their genius and learning. Judge Story further remarks : "The univer sal sense of America has decided, that in the last resort, the, judiciary must decide upon the constitutionality of the acts of the general and State governments, as far as they are capable of being made the subject of judicial controversy." Now, here is authority directly in point—in the whole history of this country—that of the National government, and of all the respective States—in the history of England, which is the great fountain of our law, there cannot be found an instance in which the Legislature has been permitted to give authoritative exposition to an set which involved simply a question of consti tutional construction. No, sir, never. I say again that this question must come ultimately to the courts; it cannot escape their revision.— Suppose that this bill be now passed; the com pany resist the operation of the law, the ques tion ie brought before the courts unavoidably and immediately. It goes before the courts as a question of constitutional law, and will be de cided by them upon the inspection of the bill and • upon the question of contract. • Bid sir, further than this, where would be the end, if our Legislature may thus attempt to determine the constitutionality of the acts of their predecessors, making their supposed un constitutionality a ground of repeal. If it be in our power to repeal the act of 1861, what is to prevent the Legislature of 1888 from repeal ing our repealing act, and what is to prevent the Legislature of 1864 from re-enacting the act. Why sir, the result of this doctrine would be interminable confusion ; there would be no end to this . process of enactment and repeal. Patrick Henry, in discussing the question of the adoption of the Constitution of the 'United States, uses this language : "The honorable gentleman did our judiciary honor,,in saying that they had firmness enough to counteract the Legislature in some cases.— Yee, sir, eur fudges opposed the acts of the Leg islature. We'have this land-mark to guide us. They had fortitude to declare that they were the judiciary, and would oppose unconstitutional . acts. Are you sure that your federal judiciary will act thus. Is that judiciary so well consti tuted, and so independent of the other branches, as our State judiciary? Where are your laud marks in this government? I will be bold to say, you cannot find any. I take it as the highest encomium on this country that the acts of the Legislature; if unconstitutional, are liable to be opposed by the judiciary."—[2 Eui ores Debates, 248.] It is, in. the judgment of Patrick Henry, in the highest degree indecent titsubmit the de termination of constitutional questions to any other tribunal than the judiciary. Now, sir, it has been further said by the gen tleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Wrtmns,),that "there is great danger of the judiciary en croaching upon the powers of the Legislature." Why, sir, that idea seems to me a phantom.— When has there been such danger ?. Where has the judiciary ever eneroached in this manner ? I know perfectly well that the gentleman from Allegheny, disturbed by some diatorted vision of railroad bonds, thinks that the present Su preme Court are incompetent to decide upon great:oast:Rational questions. I am not dis posed to, take issue with him upon that question. It is sufficient that the sense and judgment of the whole profession is against him. But it is not a question of their competency, in which I may be permitted to say I have entire confi dence ; but, whether they be competent or not, you "mot escape their decision. They are not only authorized to decide, but the Constitution required them to decide ; the decision rests with them alone, and cannot be wrested from them, nor pronounced by any other, power. But on this subject, the learned judge, from whose com mentaries I read, says: " It may, in the last place, be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary eneroachmenin on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and con traventions of the will of the Legislature may now and thorn happen ; but they can never be so extbrudve as to amount to an inconvenience, or, in any sensible degree, to affect the order of the political system.' But, auppose that we may declare a law to be unconstitutional, and repeal it on this ground— impose that we may assume that part of the jndiaial function—l ask what becomes of the distribution of the powers of the government, so wisely divided into three departments. Upon that point let me again read from Judge Story : "What becomes of the limitations of the Con stitution, if the twill of the people, thus truce cially_promulgated, forms, for,the time being, the supremelaw and the supreme firtpositionigif the law r N ow , mask the .inconsistency. We become xst the 0 1 10400-91.11 03 tir ; then,. welsentehe • i 7; EM its expositors, thus by our own act vesting in our selves the whole powers of the judiciary and the legislative department. We assume to say that the law which we passed is no contract ; that it is fairly and entirely within the power of the Legislature and may be repealed. Judge Story Says : "If the will of the people is to govern in the construction of the powers of the Constitution, and that will is to be gathered at every succes sive election at the polls, and not from their deliberate judgment and solemn acts in ratify ing the Constitution, or in amending it, what certainly can there be in those powers? If the Constitution is to be expounded, not by its written text, but by the opinions of the rulers for the time being, whose opinions are to pre vail, the first or the last?" WhOse opinion is to prevail—that of l the Legislature of 1861, or that of the Legislature of 1862, or of 1868 or 1864? "When, therefore, it is said that the judges ought to be subject to the will of the people, and to (=fonm to' their interpretation of the Constitution, the practical meaning must be that they should be subjected to the control of the representatives of the people in the execu tive and legislative departments, and should interpret the Constitution as the latter may, from time to time, deem correct." Here we have the question presented in all its length and breadth. This bill proposes that this Legislature shall impose upon the Supreme Court, the duty of deciding upon an act of As sembly according to this Legislature's inter pretation of that Constitution. Upon the general proposition which I have announced that a Legislative grant is a contract, I suppose, sir, it is quite unnecessary to cite further authority than I have already done. To a lawyer to state it is all that is necessary, and I presume that even my friend from Alla • gheny, (Mr. Wuxuare,) who is 'so zealously affected in this cause, would not venture to dispute it: But upon the question of repealing such an act, let me cite the case of Ferret vs. Taylor,9 Cranch, 52, in which the &- Arne Court use the following language: "But that the Legislature (of a State) can repeal statutes, creating private corporations, or confirming to them property already acquired under the faith of previous laws, and by such repeal cap vest the prpperty of such corpora tions exclusively in the State, or dispose of the same to such purposes as they may please, without the consent or default of the corpo rators, we are not prepared to admit; and we think ourselves, standing upon the principles of natural justice, upon the fundamental laws of every free government, upon the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States, and upon the decisions of most respect able judicial tribunals in resisting such a doc trine." In brief returns of the question, I may say it comes down to, just this: the Legislature of 1861 has passed an act of Assembly which I say is a contract, (and I challenge investigation and argument upon that point,) and this act being a contract, it is not competent for the • Legislature to repeal it. This question of fraud in the legislative department of the government in passing an act of Assembly, and which is attempted to be raised here, cannot be entertained by the courts, and cannot be passed upon by this Legislature. The remedy for this evil—and it is an efficient one—is vested exclusively in the people, who, by their return of proper persons, at all times should protect themselves against this sort of abuse, It is a power resting in the people alone ; and to be exercised by them in their primary and sovereign capacity at the polls—they have not clothed the Legislature with this supervisory power over themselves. It is not competent for this Legislature to in quire into the acts of its predecessor ; nor is it competent for the courts thus to inquire. There is no writ that could bring the Legisla ture, as such, before them; and least of all, a Legislature which is dissolved, and has no pre sent existence whatever. There is no power by which it could be done. There are no plead ings that could raise the question. There is no precedent for such an act in any case, in England Cr America—no, not one. I beg the House to bear this fact in mind. a I here chal lenge contradiction, when I say that in the whole judicial history of England, or of the United States, there is not one case ih which it has been attempted to arraign the Legisla ture before a tribunal, to investigate the ques tion of fraud in the passage of a legislative act. It is wholly impracticable, as well as utterly indecent. The leading case bearing upon the question, is that ,of Fletcher vs Peck, in which the courts refused to hear testimony, and pro nounced it to be " unseemly and indecent," that such an attempt should be made, because the powers of government were vested in three co-ordinate branches, and for one to assume the controlling jurisdiction over the other, would break down the very principles of liberty on which our Constitution is based. I need not refer to other cases to show that the Legislature has no judicial power. The gentleman, I have no doubt, will admit that, as,a general principle. How he will attempt to distinguish this case, in a manner to take it outside of that general principle, I am quite at a loss to know. That the Legislature • has no judicial power, cannot be questioned. If it were disputed, it would be easy to refer gen tlemen to the cue of De Castellux vs. Fair child, decided some years ago, in which the Legislature attempted to pass an act of Assem bly to grant a new trial. I believe the case was from Fayette county—l am not sure. The act assumed to grant a new trial in a certain case ; and th 9 court would not recognise any such jurisdiction in the Legislature, and decided that there was no power in the .Legislature to overrule the previous decision of the courts. In Curtis's Commentaries upon the Constitu tion, (and I will refer to this very briefly,) it is declared in section 268: " It is important., how ever, in the distinction as to laws which divest vested rights, to observe that if the rights have vested under a contract, or a grant of a State, a law which impairs or takes them away im pairs the obligation of a contract, since that obligation necessarily includes an undertaking not to resume or interfere with the rights granted." Now, there is a settlement to the whole question. If the rights vested under the act of 1881 were the result of a contract at all, then the right; have so vested that the State cannot take them away, because it is in contravention of the Constitution. of the United States and thei Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania, which both expressly forbid, that any law shall be made impairing the obligation of contracts. And it is admitted that the grant of a State does constitute a contract. But as to the question of . fraud—and in this connection, let me remind the House that the gentleman from Washington, In the last discus .sion of this question, said that he did not rest the passage of the bill upon the matter of fniuc at all; he is prepared to Tote for the repeal of this act totally apart from the question of fraud. In that,. I opine, he differs from the learned gen tleman from Allegheny, because that gentle man expressly put the case upon the ground that because there was fraud in the contract, because it was unjust and inequitable to execute a contract which bad been obtained by bad faith on..the part of one of the contracting parties, therefore the act could be repealed. m r. Nvirr,r i 4 hiS Will the gentleman allow me to ask him whether he refers to my argu ment in relation to the bill now pending, as putting the case upon the ground of fraud simy ? Mr pl . ARMSTRONG. I refer to the remarks made by the gentlesnazi at an early stage of the discussion, (I do not remember the , particular question pending,) in which the gentletqm dis tinetly took the ground that the contract was yoid, because it bad been obtained by fraudu lent plena. petinspluania Malty it &graph, j, onactilltiont` ins. aid) 17, 1862 Mr. WILLIAMS. The gentleman will allow me to explain. The only section of the pream ble submitted by me which did charge fraud, or did refer to the probable existence of fraud in the way of reputation or rumor, was exscin ded by the House ; the preamble, outside of that, contained no reference to any positive fraud ; and I stated expressly that I did not put this case on that ground—that I held the act might be repealed without showing fraud. I do not say that there is any fraud proved, and do not propose, of course, on this bill, to act upon that presumption. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Then I take it that this is an abandonmont of the question in regard to the strongest position on which the gentleman has heretofore based this case. Now I beg the members of this House to bear that admission in mind at this time, and I wish the people of the State to know that it is now distinctly avowed that the repeal of the act is not sought upon any allegation of fraud by the comy in prouring its passage. It is thus red uced simply' and purely to a question of constitutional construction and power. And upon this alone am I at issue with the gentleman and the advo- Gates for its repeal. Let the gentlemen who now Impose to repeal this act bear in mind that fPI now distinctly avowed that this bill is not to be rested on the ground of fraud. Mr.. WILLIAMS. The gentleman will of course understand me as referring, (and as a lawyer he will recognize the distinctlon,) to fraud, in fact not anything fraudulent in law— to fraud in fact. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, sir, the courts long ago came to the conclusion that the dis tinction between frauds in law and frauds in fact is vety limited indeed; and as this case stands, there can be no fraud in law that is not a fraud in fact. There la no room here for the distinction • it is a distinction without a differ ence. In this particular case, the only fraud that can be alleged at all is the fraudulent Means used in obtaining the passage of the bill. That is the fraud, if there is fraud at all. ' The idea °flaws suggestion, in the preamble to the act, which the gentleman dwelt upon at Isom° length, is a matter of very minor consequence indeed. It cannot be alleged that here is fraud committed upon a party who has in his hand and before his eyes the very terms of the con tract which he proposes to' execute. There is here no pretension of deception•practiced upon the Legislature. To take that grormd is totally to abandon the other • and I take it that the position just avowed by the gentleman is an entirely novel position for him, because hereto fore it has been argued that fraudulent means were used to procure its passage—that there was corruption in the , Legislature—that a ma= jority of the , members were corrupt, and that because of this corruption the act obtained by these fraudulent means was void. That' was the argument. • Mr. WILLIAMS. It was the argument on the question of investigation, not on this bill. Mx. ARMSTRONG. Well, sir, the' records will show the facts; lam not disposed to bandy assertions in regard to the matter; but every member of this House knows perfectly well that the position assumed in reference to this bill was that it was a fraud. That was the position; that was the language used by more than one gentleman- ' lam not solely replying to the gentleman . from Allegheny, but the position was taken by others, as well as him self, that the sole . ground on 'which the repeal of this bill rests is fraud. Now, sir, lam perfectly free say that, so far as fraud entered into that contract, I wish there were means by which that fraud could be reached; but as a lawyer, as a professional man, I say that it cannot be reached by the method proposed here—that there is no power in the Legislature to repeal a legislative contact or grant • because of corrupt means used in the procuring of its passage. The presumption is that the Legislative power, as part of the gen.: eral sovereignty, can do no wrong, just as in England, the maxim is "the king can do no wrong." Here we 'apply the maxim to the government, and the : maxim is of equal sig nificance both there and here. It is anala gous to that other maxim of law, that the "the king never dies." The government al ways exists. The particular man may die; buf the sovereignty never dies. A particular Le gislature may go out of existence ;• the legisla tive,power never dies. You cannot arraign the legislative power for any particular act of mal feasance on the part of any individual member of that Legislature. He is amenable individu ally to the, laws, which provide the punish moat for such malfeasance. I would make those laws as stringent as they can be made. I would punish with the utmost severity any Attempt to corrupt the Legislature by any per son at any time. Bat, sir, I would not sacrifice the great , principles of public liberty which• underlie the division ofjudicial,• legislative and executive powers by attempting thus to en croach upon the judicial functions and to usurp in the Legislature a power which the Constitu tion and the laws have never vested in them. "The truth is," says Justice Story, "that the legislative power is the great and over-ruling power in.every free goeernment. It has been remarked, with equal force and sagacity, that the legislative power is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex." There lies the danger pointed out over and over again. The-danger consists in the Legis lature drawing into its "impetuous vortex' all the powers of the government. "The representatives of the people will watch, with jealousy, every encroachment of the Exe cutive magistrate, for it trenches upon their own authority. Bat whO shall watch the encroach ment of these repre3entativenhemselves ? Will they be as jealous of the exercise of power by themselves, as by, others? In a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is Care fully limited, both in the extent and duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an , assembly, which is inspired by .a supposed influence over the people, with an in trepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions" which actuate the multitude, yet not so numer ous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions by means which reason prescribes; it is easy to see, that the tendency to the usur pation of power is, if not constant, at least pro bable; and it is asidnst the enterprising ambition of this, the (the legislative,) department, that the people may well indulge all their jealo u sy, and exhaust all their precautions." Sir, such is the lawns& of a judge who has been one of the distinguished lights of the judiciary—a bright ornament of the Supreme Court of the United States, in discussing this very precise question-the'danger to the liber ties of the people resulting from attempted innovations by the Legislature upon the other branches of the government. But it may be asked, and it has been asked in this discussion, " What is to be the remedy, if there be any misconstruction of the Conti-- . tution on the part Of the government of the United States, (or, as in this case, of a State,) or its functionaries, and any power exercised by them, not warranted by its true meaning?" To this question a general answer may be given, in the words of its early expositors " The same as if the State Legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authori ties." In the first instance, if this 'should be by Congress, " the, success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary de paritnatts, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts ; and, in the last resort, a remedy must be obtained front the pe 6 Ple•" • Now, there is the remedy. Suppose (and it h a s been much dwelt upon) that any alleged frauds in procuring this act, cannot be inquired into by the courts, and cannot be inquired into by the Legislature. • Where, it is asked, is the remedy ?' _Now 'everybody admits that in such a cage ai ePite.;: 4 !l> one:pretends tto question that it is intolerable—a- monsterous outrage that any member of the Leghilature should be corrupted; every one admits that it is such an evil as requires correction.— Yet, wherein shall this correction consist?— Let not the remedy be worse than the dis ease. Let all due punishment, severe and cer tain, be visited on the wrong doer—but let us not break down those healthful divisions of power between the co-ordinate branches of the government, bpt refer the question back to the people—the source of all power, and compel them, taught by this stern lesson, and by the stress of their own necessities, to send to the Legislature, men who rise entirely above all suspicions of dishonesty and fraud. Let the Legislature never be sus ceptible of corruption. The remedy rests there, and it cannot be put elsewhere. Why, sir, how could a court inquire in such a case ? I ask the gentleman again, what writ is there that would reach this case 1 There is no process that would reach it ; there is no writ that could bring any Legislature, or any of its branches before the court, or arraign upon it any of the co-ordinate departments of Govern: went; nor are there any pleadings that would raise the question. In none of the .Finglish authorities—in none of the United States - au thorities—nowhere will we find any such a power maintained ; and I assert it here, and I think it cannot be contradicted, that such a case has never arisen in the whole history of legisla tion. And yet we are invited here to inaugu rate this system which would inevitably work so disastrously. Now, sir, let me call attention to the precise point in my amendment The State of Pena -1 sylvania held 'two judgments against the Penn sylvania railroad company, I think, for about three handred thousand dollars, iI do not at present recollect the precise amount) I propose to institute such •legal proceedings as may be necessary for their collection, thus, by the ordinary and approved course of judicial proceedings, to place the money in the treasury, if it can be done. Mr. BIGHAM. As a matter of fact, do those judgments remain unsatisfied 1' . _ Mr. ARMSTRONG. I have been informed that, as a matter of fact, they remain unsatis fied, and that execution may issue upon them. But even though they should_be of record sa tisfied, it would make no difference_; for the gentleman knows very well that a judgment on which satisfaction has been.erroneonsly en tered is always open to the examination of the court, and the entry of satisfaction • May be stricken off. That circumstance would make no particular difference, except that it might slightly change the form of preliminary pro ceeding. The amendment then proposes to collect the money, and put it into the treasury. Now, if the act of last session be not a constitutional and valid act, this can be done. There is nothing to prevent the collection of that money but this act of Assembly. If the act is uncon stitutional, then it is void, and does not inter pose any obstacle ; and no power on earth can prevent the collection of the money, for the corporation is perfectly solvent. And if it be constitutional, then, in my judgment, it is a contract, which cannotobe repealed. If, on the other hand, it is unconstitutional, it is of course void ab initio; aneit is idle to waste time in thisliiscussion, and stultify ourselves by passing an act of repeal. • Why is it, sir, that the advocates of the re peal resist so tenaciously the reference of the question to the courts, to which, as they, very well-know, it must inevitably come at last. -Is it, sir, that the public mind may be kept in continual agitation upon the subject, and that out of the public disquietude, some personal, political, or other 'advantage may be gathered. Sir, I have no distrust of ,the public virtue. It will stand by the plighted faith of the Com monwealth, and execute her contracts, though she suffer. Now, sir, let me state the main difference be tween the amendment of the gentleman . from Allegheny and my amendment to the amend ment. The gentleman, in his amendment, proposes to reinstate the tonnagli tax. In this attempt he meets with just this difficulty : If this be a valid contract, it is one of the provisions of the law that this tonnage tax shall not be re imposed, unless it be equally imposed upon other railroad companies of tfie State. There you meet precisely the same constitutional ob- jection to which I have referred, and which is to be answered in precisely the same way. If the act of last session be unconstitutional, as I have already said, it needs no repeal, and with out any legislative act, the rights of the State revive ; and whatever arrearages of tonnage dues there may be, can be colletted by process of law, without any act of Assembly. There fore, the repeal of the act is unnecessary, even for this purpose. The proposition of my amendment is, that we shall proceed to collect this money, if it can be collected ; that the Attorney General be in structed to test the validity of . the act of 1861. I have used the word validity, instead of con stitutionality, because it is a word of larger meaning. My proposition is not" dependent upon the discretion of the Attorney General ; it instructs him absolutely to test the validity of the law ; and if it be declared unconstitu tional or void, in whole or in part, then he is directed to proceed immediately to sue for and collect the whole residue of the tonnage dues. Now, sir, in view of these considerations, what possible objection can there be to my pro position? It covers this whole case. It strikes out the preamble which attempts to make this Legislature speak the particular sentiments of particular men, who, I will not deny, entertain convictions which are perfectly honest, but who, I believe, are strongly biased with hostil ity to this road. Why make this Legislature express themselves in the extraordinary manner, of the gentleman's preamble. Let us do what we can in a legitimate and proper way to' effect our purpose. What 'I propose, that this Legis lature shall do is to recover the money, if it can be done, and put it back into the treasury of the State—to sue for and collect not'only the judgments, but the arrearages of the tonnage dues. The proposition is very plain and straight forward. Who dare say that it does not propose -a_sufficient, dignified and proper dime. It meeta the question fully and in pre cisely the same manner that the rights of every citizen are ascertained. It proposes to deal with the question in the only legitimate manner in which it can be dealt with. With these convictions, how can I vote for this bill? As I have said, I was opposed to the passage of the act, and resisted it at every stage of its progress, It was I who wrote and offered at the time, as the journals of last session will show, the amendment which pro poeed to compel the company to pay into the treasury the whole amount of tonnage dues accrued before the passage of the act. And, air, I would now oppose the - repeal of the tonnage duties were it a question still within the power of the Legalature. I would stand side by side with the gentleman from Allegheny, as I did before I joined hands in opposition to the act with the gentleman from Bradford, the gentleman from Tioga and others whom I see here, in doing all we could to prevent its passage. But, sir, I calk , : not forget that I have sworn "before Almighty God, the searcher of all hearts, that I will sup port the Constitution of the United States, that I will supportake Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania, d that I will discharge my duty as a member of this Legislature with fidelity, and that, as I shall answer to God in the great day." Would it be fidelity, if, with strong convic tions, that this law cannot be repealed, I should attempt to shirk from the share of responsibility which attaches 'to my office, and say to the Supreme Court : You, sirs, take the responsi bility of the act which I, in my, cowardice, dare air sirj meet this dues ion on higher ground than that. I believe that this law can not be repealed—that it stands under the plighted faith of the Common'skealth. The people, by their representatives, have said to the Pennsylvania railroad company, "This laiw is to you a contract, you have performed its conditions, you paid the consideration." When we have thus made a solemn contract, shallthe great State of Pennsylvania stand up before the world and say, "We call back our plighted faith ; you have executed the contract. We hold it in possession; you have paid your money, and it lies securely in our coffers—but you shall not call this a contract. We rue our bargain and our sover eignty will enforce your submission. And here I may remark for a moment upon another fallacy ; which has been pressed in the argument. We talk about the people. What are we but the people. Sir, the people have passed this act. What are we • but a small side-stream of the great current' •of the State, which flows annually into this House. We shall soon give place to other men who may still bet ter than we fulfil the wishes of the people. It was the people that decreed that this law should pass, that these rights should be vested, that the Pennsylvania railroad company should have these privileges ; and by that sovereign act they have them* It may be said that the grant of these privileges was wrong, that they ought not to have been bestowed, and I concur in that opinion ; but since it was the pleasure of the sovereign people of this State acting through their constituted Representatives, to confer those powers, I say again sir, that it is impossible for us to repeat the act, and the question must ultimately be referred to the consideration of the Supreme Court, to whom only it properly belongs. The proposition which I have submitted b.inga tha question directly, clearly and pointedly .before that tribunal in sach a manner that there can be do evasion. I maintain; sir, that this is a right measure for this .Rouse to adopt. It meets the question as a business question. It excludes from it whatever there may be of po litical meaning, if there be any ; it allays that feeling of distrust which might arise from attempted legislation of a 'different character. Why, sir, how long will men continue to invest upon the faith of chartered rights if successive legialatures may destroy them at will ? The bonds of the Pennsylvania railroad non:many have risen in Value in consequence of this act. The rights of third persons have inter vened in a thousand ways. These bonds:have become valuable and oftentimes permanent investments to thousands of present holders by purchase since the act was passed, and shall it be said that we have the right now to di minish the value of these ingestments by re- pealing the act which gave tMm their value— and that without one word as to compensation tor consequent losses. I say again, sir, in my judgment it cannot be done. I am sorry to have trespassed so long upon the patience of the Rouse, and thank you for the attention with which you have heard my, remarks. I feel, sir, that this is an important question and one which we should- meet in all its responsibilities—with all due fairness.to the company, and with all due regard to the plighted faith of the Commonwealth. ~l%SLtllatuOUL DARLING'S L_l V_ER R EG U LAT Olt, LIFE BITTERS, • Aey.R.b; pure vegetable 6M:recto,. They cure all bilious disorders or the humati System.— regulate and Invigorate the liver and sittings hay give tone to the digestive organs; they regulate Ow torotiOns excretions and exhalations, equalise the el' Sidon, and purify the blood. Tim all bilious comnbe -some of which aro' rorpid Liver. dick Headache. epria, China and Fevers, Coalleau...as or Loma. ,us--ar.: .oulroio.l an I cur • by theme rano. tire.... • DARLING'S LIVER REGULATOR :moves the morbid and billloos deposits from the atom. .icb and bowels; regluatos the liver and kidneys, remov eg every obstruction, restores s natural and healthy so don In the vital organs. It is • superior FAMILY MEDICINE, uch better than OA and much easier to take. DARLING'S LIFE BITTEBS .8 a superior tonic and diuretics ; excellent in cases of 411 01 appetite, &Maloney, female weakness, irregulari ties, pain, in th e side and bo sell, blind, protruding and weeding plies; end generaljiabiay. READ THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY ; J. L. Brumley, merchant, 184 Fulton streM, New /ark, writes, august 18, 1880: ..1 lave been adlienat 4th plea, accompanied with blealing, Etie last three yeas 1 used DARLING'S • LIVER INVIGORAiTOR LIAR BITTE'RS, And now consider myself mums cassm.c 800. John A. Gross writes, "Brooklyn, March 10, 1860 In the spring. of 1869 I took a severe cold, wink% Induc ed a violent fever. I took Iwo doses of DARLING'S LIVER ARBGVIATOR. ,t broke up my old and fever at once, Previous to thla attack, 1 hau been troubled with dyspepsia several months ; I have lest nothing of it ' OW Studly,lisq., lffit Bast 28th Street, N T., writes °: "August 12,1860—i had a difficulty with Kidney 00M- Otdoirthree years with constant ptin la the 401/131 of mi . beck. I had used most alt lauds et medicines, but found no permanent relief until 1 used DARLING'S LIVER DIVIGORATOR, LIFE, BITTERS.. I passed clotted blood by the urethra Igm now a n _ tirely cured, and take pleasure to recommending these rentedies.7, Mrs C. Yebow, 11 Christopher Street, N. writes "Feb 20, 1880.-1 have been subject to attacks of nett'. 0114 Um lest twoity years. ,1 have never found anything equal to Darling's Liver Regulator, u affording immediate relief, It is a thorough liver and bilious remedy!, Mrs. Young. of Brooklyn, writes, "February 28,1860. In May lam I nada severe attack of Piles, which confin ed me to the house. I took one bottle of DARLING'S LIFE BITTERS • and wail entirely eared. I have bad no attack since." D. Westervelt, Esq., of South sth, near 9th Street, Wil liamsburg, L. 1., writes : "august 5, 1860.—Having been troubled with a difficulty m the Liver, and subject to bil king attacks, I was advised by a friend to try DARLING'S LIVER *REGULATOR, 1 did so, and found it to operate admirably, removing the bile and arousing the liver to activity. I have also used it as et FAMILY MrinOENE. When our children are out of sorts, we give them a few drops and it seta them all right. I dad it meets the general wants of the stomach and bowels when disorder ed." Run . an, If you need either or both of them moat ex caffein Remedies, inquire for them a the stores ; if you' do not find them, take no other, but inclose One Dollar In stetter, and on receipt of the money, the Remedy or Remedies will be cent accordingto your d‘rec Lions, by mail or express, postpaid. Address, • DAN'L S. DARLING, 102 Nassau street, New York. Put up In 50cent and 31. Bette le each. ect24-dlim JUST OPENED! A FINE LOT OF SUPERIOR gii3EICA-.4IEILISIJ • IiIDE of Good Tobacco. and' from one to two years old, of my own manufacture. A flue iot of choice Chewing and Smoking Tobacco, Pipes, Snuff and a large variety of other articles constantly on hen d for sale wholesale and retail.' Thankful for former pat ronage, I hope by strict attention to business to receive a liberal share of the trade, A Roe 13modag Room attached, where customers may lay back and test my &gam and Tobacco. Don't forget the window 'with the Ship in that is the place to buy your Tobacco and. Seger& North Market Square; above Market !greet., Harrisburg ' 12.81.--dtlai • WM. WYKOITY Cttt ELLt`R PROPYLAMM, THE NEW REMEDY FOR RIZED'ILELTIBM, A NEW REMEDY, A CERTAIN REMEDy, roc Alarm RklillgUTlSH, CHRONIC RaKrmATials, RamisAlum OE EVERY EIND ; HOW STUBBORN, Ng awn= HOW LUNG t,TANDIN, PROPPL 4 MDT/ Wlr ILL CURB n' IT, WHAT IT HAS DONE, It WILL DO AGAIN, DOM igB REID OuVlCilta Dom, TRY MIMICA ritsnmornt. BRE6L PillierTlE' ji MED? : EW lT ir ' 17 TklrD AND RUE PENNSYLVANIA lIOS.PL'I'AL Wean °maul Howerrit REPOSIT Kw 79,1669,—E11er S., at. M, single, never a m etroug. Two years ago the had an attack of Recto roma.. tieM,lroM which she was confined to her bed tor tariirel,, and subseuentiy Ironic relapse ter four mars • ide well since then till ol d, t day, while encased is cleaning, she took had pain in her back felt cant o had no deeldec chill. Two days boat twr Fame. gan which was follow< ti by 0 , 0 ; knee Joins and tit the bands. tlhe cvw pain in her *boulders, and her trinities e vcry tender red and painful ; both hands are ale ted, l e n Is MOM. so. This, then, is a case of acute rtedniethin.t as it ts new fashionably called, rheetniu er, r well remarked typical cat* We will careludy trairti Its Case, and from time to time call your ant:tam e to tie itlr,. Oda symptoms beforee thentseives tirohi t 0.5 e; in bringing her you now, is to call .NG 14 remedy which has recently been ecom mental ite treatment a rheumatism. 1m an prong, e,. bite highest of St. Petersburg, recommends Ingheat berm, having derived great eettelit Irma 4,e in 2150 Cased which came under his cai e. rare., ram mandatory reaLinuonlals re*pecUng it have iipprerel our journals, and I. propose therefore to per it to-dter trial moat confess lem always locrrdulo u worth of new remedies, which are vaunted . but this comes to us recommended so hi,bly, Rut are bound to give it a trial. • SABLE CASE FOIIII DAYS LATEh May 28,1860.-1 will now exhibit to you the lutiatfil, whom I prescribed Propy!Amu; and ara a tool LA, log under an atiaink of acute rheuknakiam. steadily taken it In doses of three grains every the huurk (hitermiltuig It at night.) The day slier you 'I. her , Mend her much more tvolfortable, better Lauf 511 e a. pealed to be fora week or more, judging Irma her suer alien.. ( the pikueot sow nitalr.ed tow toe nines ) Tb e Improvement has sMaktily moire - sant, and :Os eau ~ t tail to notice-a marked choose in tn. ar-ece „f f itr joiuta, which are uow nearly alt of their Datum ,it: Thus fur Our eXperinieul would have seemed e,,y auc oessful ; but, gentlemen, we must watt a furl • votne Ore we eau give Oecluect %/pluton as is what is he the result. Here is another patient who was place,. ou tat. use of the same usedianna on Sunday twit ; an, at DM sabring from o brooks rheumatism, and I hound her at that time with an acute attack suorrvotio. upou Let 'ehreale allbetion. The wrist. and Knot:Ala, w,de ouch SWOI4II aud LeataU. She gene the entortdd of Prala, atutt in three grain do es every Iwo auurs asal you th,i Live that the swelling of toe pmts own lon. I THREE DAYS LATER!! MAY 28, IBBo.—This Is the coos al acute rheuttatitm treated with propylamine, the first of those to mach I called your attention at our last chute. Ac re stoh very comfortable, and is now taking three grams wilco daily In this ease It has seamed to be followed by eery ;SO . bdiudery results. The second wee to which your attea • lien was called at our last fixture, has aso continued to dr, welt. I will now bring before you a very diameter. ktic Cue of acute rheumatism, am it the result he eat. factory, I think, as good jurymen, we snail justly roller our verdict in favor of propylamiu Be laa 10111191.0, wI. 213, who was admitted a sew days ago. Hu hat ocaasional rheumatic pins, but pot so as to keep his bed, until eight days up. The faille began in his right knee, aubsequently adotted the left :awe, tau litter, the joints of the upper 'tureen:llea Mose joins We all awullen, tense ails lender. till ; Ida akin, at p_ resent dry, thungu there bas been ouch sweating. the pulse is full and strong, and about Pd.— He tom now used oropylamtue fi r teentplour but" This gentleman is what mry ne ratan typos; Claw Or acute rheumatism. there Lis exposure 1. , cold and wet, anti true orpaeurc a eel:beer uy a leeliur coolness, Meerut artacul, begioulag, im It usually does, In the lower Joists. There is fever .and the profuse sweating, so generally auustdat oa mute rbellulatiatil. I did net bring this patieutivetort you won the r °ten- WO Or giving you • lecture on ah the pinta olnatided with rbeamattsm, but to a.aut give a trial to tie new remedy we are looting, Ins to ninon to you this WiSmalimire, as have Canal tt, emu watch there at. old not be a Carer Opportunity for mood the ineillelae question. We are, therefore, soothed the use oil ail other intalleisoc, eves 100 lytur4 that tber may be no misgivings as to which was tba elincicut remedy, 'ino shall see the case or a future cliute THE RESULT A FAVORABLE VERDICT Jonah, 1860.—The next or our conralmeents is the ot,acute rho uniatism before you at ear cheic DI May Ilkh, vitt& 1 thee called a tythcal case, and when it wee remarked was a Our, opportunity for testing the Worth 01 our new remedy, It wts therefore steadily given in three grain easel every two hears for roar day. The patient•has got along very ninety, and to now able to walkabout; ad you see. Ido not tomnste to a have here& seen sC severe a case of rueuvtatiem so soon restored to health m this man has been, all without being prepared to decide positive try as to the vat ne 01 the remedy we have used, I feel hound to Stale that In the oases in which we have tried the fropylamine, the patients ti tee rees,Lied their hail , . much earlier than under the treatment ordinarily pc Sued. I wish genUemen, you would younreives ny at and report the regalia. filer a full report el which the above et a eadriog extract, itee the Philadelphia Medical ant &epee N!- porter. IL le the report alter a lair trial by the beg med. teal authority In this country, and makee it uweemeliff to give nuinerona certificates !rem &Wombed anoori and regolcing patients. A SPEEDY CORR, AN EFFECTUAL CURE. THE SAKE RESULT i E V ERY WHAT IT HAS DONE, 1 W rwr LN E I . n E o iti:1 0 1 1 1 1 siL,O 1110 Ch & arellthAW, a firm well known to most medi cal men, by whom the Elixir Propylamine Has been ID trodnoed, tom Bold to no the exclusive right to column& tare it according to the original recipe, one we bate made armisgemeate of such magnitude ap. w Kiel& a to matter it broadcast amongst sulfuring huniailitY A WORD TO DOCTORS. If yeu preihr to use the same remedy to seater fax, 9Va invite your attention to the Punt ORYSTALUED COLOiIDII PROM-kIENII Pon PROPILAYINI LiQUICs Pawl PROEM.AIIIIII.CONCINTRATID, Pan loam Pacmulusa, of which we are the sole man nachdem. sirWe claim= other virtue for the Elixir fropyildeng than 18 contained in Pure Crystalised Chloride et spy` famine. CONY MONT, ANJJ ALWAYS !WAD y FUR 111101/41R US). AND MAY BE TAKEN, AUX/IMM TO DIRECTIONS, BY ANY DNB, BY BTRBY ONE, WHO HAS RHEUMATISM OF ANY BIND. Bold In Harrisburg by AT 76 ors. a Barra Orders may be addressed to PROPYLAJUNE imArufAcrußhvo co Office, Room No. 4, S. W. Cot. Fourth and eWnot streets Pntladelpna Or ut!'either of the following 4B tC, Wholesale Agents. BULLOCK at CK E rJj & & FRENCH, DICELS JOHN MaslB..con& COn G D. wgri3 CO., PETER T. WltkilOT & ZEIGLER & Bitrra, IO , mo ßßis visor pima• Rod-inY
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers