470 



LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL. 



The statutes of nearly every State of the Union pro- 

 vide for the increase of damages where the injury 

 complained of results from the neglect of duties im- 

 posed for the better security of life and property, 

 and makes the increase in many cases double, in some 

 cases treble, and even quadruple the actual damages. 

 And experience favors this legislation as the most 

 efficient mode of preventing with the least incon- 

 venience, the commission of injuries. The decisions 

 of the highest courts have affirmed the validity of 

 such legislation. The injury actually received is often 

 so small that in many cases no effort would be made by 

 the sufferer to obtain"redress 2 if the private interest were 

 not supported by the imposition of punitive damages. 



Equally untenable, the Court concluded, was 

 the objection that the statute of Missouri vio- 

 lates the clause of the fourteenth amendment 

 which prohibits a State to deny to any person 

 within its jurisdiction the equal protection of 

 the laws. " The statute makes no discrimi- 

 nation against any railroad company in its re- 

 quirements." 



State Grants to Gas and Water Companies. In 

 the case of the New Orleans Gas-Light Com- 

 pany against the Louisiana Light and Heat 

 Producing Company, the Supreme Court ren- 

 dered on Dec. 7, 1885, an opinion as to the 

 law governing State grants to gas companies. 

 Prior to 1879 the Louisiana Legislature granted 

 to the New Orleans Gas-Light Company the 

 exclusive privilege of supplying that city witli 

 gas-light for a specified term of years. In 

 1879 a provision was embodied in the Consti- 

 tution that " the monopoly features in the 

 charter of any corporation now existing in this 

 State, save such as may be contained in the 

 charter of railroad companies, are hereby abol- 

 ished." There was a proviso preserving rights, 

 claims, and contracts then existing. After the 

 adoption of this constitutional provision, the 

 Louisiana Light and Heat Company was or- 

 ganized by authority of the State, and New 

 Orleans, to furnish gas in that city. The New 

 Orleans Gas-Light Company claimed that this 

 was a violation of the exclusive privilege 

 granted to it. The United States Supreme 

 Court sustained the claim. It held that the 

 charter granted to the plaintiff was a contract 

 protected by that clause of the Federal Con- 

 stitution which forbids a State to impair the 

 obligations of a contract ; that it could not be 

 revoked or violated either by the Legislature 

 or by a constitutional provision adopted after 

 the contract was made. 



It was contended that supplying a city with 

 gas-light was a matter relating to the public 

 comfort and in a sense to the public health 

 and safety, and hence fell within the police 

 power, which no State could bargain away; 

 that it was a matter in which one legislature 

 could not restrict the power of a subsequent 

 legislature ; and therefore that the charter 

 granted to the first company was not an 

 irrevocable contract. After citing cases in 

 which irrevocable contracts had been made in 

 the exercise of the police power, Justice Har- 

 lan, who delivered the opinion of the Court, 

 said : " If the State can, by contract, restrict 



the exercise of her power to construct and 

 maintain highways, bridges, and ferries, by 

 granting to a particular corporation the exclu- 

 sive right to construct and operate a railroad 

 within certain lines and between given points, 

 or to maintain a bridge or operate a ferry over 

 one of her navigable streams within desig- 

 nated limits ; if she may restrict the exercise 

 of the power of taxation, by granting exemp- 

 tion from taxation to particular individuals and 

 corporations; it is difficult to perceive upon 

 what ground we can deny her authority when 

 not forbidden by her own organic law in 

 consideration of money to be expended and 

 important services to be rendered for tlie pro- 

 motion of the public comfort, the public health, 

 or the public safety, to grant a franchise, to 

 be exercised exclusively by those who thus do 

 for the public what the State might undertake 

 to perform either herself or by subordinate 

 municipal agencies." 



The Court then proceeded to review those 

 cases in which it had affirmed the principle that 

 one legislature can not barter away the police 

 power, nor so limit the discretion of its suc- 

 cessors that they may not enact such laws as 

 are necessary to protect the public health or 

 the public morals. "That principle, it may 

 be observed, was announced with reference to 

 particular kinds of private business which, in 

 whatever manner conducted, were detrimental 

 to the public health or the public morals. It 

 is fairly the result of those cases, that statuto- 

 ry authority, given by the State under her po- 

 lice power, to corporations or individuals to 

 engage in a particular private business attend- 

 ed by such results, while it protects them for 

 the time against public prosecution, does not 

 constitute a contract, preventing the with- 

 drawal of such authority, or the granting of 

 to others." This principle has been applu 

 in the case of slaughtering animals, manufact 

 uring fertilizers, making beer, and carrying 

 on lotteries. The charters granted to corpora- 

 tions to engage exclusively in these kinds 

 business were held revocable at the will of 

 Legislature. "The present case," ^ the Com 

 said, "involves no such considerations. For, 

 as we have seen, the manufacture of gas, ai 

 its distribution for public and private use bj 

 means of pipes laid, under legislative authority, 

 in the streets and ways of a city, is not an 

 ordinary business in which every one may en- 

 gage, but is a franchise belonging to the Gov- 

 ernment, to be granted, for the accomplish- 

 ment of public objects, to whomsoever, and 

 upon what terms, it pleases. It is a business 

 of a public nature, and meets a public neces- 

 sity for which the State may make provision. 

 It is one which, so far from affecting the pub- 

 lic injuriously, has become one of the most 

 important agencies of civilization for the pro- 

 motion of the public convenience and the pub 

 lie safety." 



With reference to the contract in this case, it maj 

 be said that it is not, in any legal sense, to the preju- 



