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