Constitution directs that the Legislature, in forming districts, shall compose them of "compact and contiguous territory, as nearly equal in population as may be." These rules are the cardinal points in apportionment. If they be followed in good faith, they will result in just, fair, and acceptable laws. It is only when they are violated that difficulty and injuctice are occasioned.

The Attorney General has instituted two important judicial proceedings to enforce the provisions of the Constitution governing railroad corporations. One of these proceedings was begun for the purpose of preventing the Pennsylvania railroad from discontinuing the construction of the projected competing line between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, known as the South Pennsylvania railroad, by the purchase and control of the property and franchises of the latter road and its substantial consolidation with the former, and the control and purchase of the Beech Creek railroad, an important coal-carrying line. The citizens in the portions of the State benefited by the competition existing or projected, in public meeting and by private communication, protested to the Executive against the wrong and injury to business and trade that would result from the intended suppression of railroad facilities, and petitioned the intervention of the State to prevent this plain violation of the Constitution and its consequent evils. The Attorney General, though beset with many difficulties in obtaining testimony, succeeded in fully and clearly establishing the facts of the intended, and partially effected, scheme by which the competing lines were to be consolidated with, and controlled by, their rival, the Pennsylvania railroad; and, upon the facts thus proven, the court of Dauphin county, where the suit was begun, continued the preliminary injunctions against all the parties to the arrangement, forbidding its consummation. The Su

33-Vol. X-4th Ser.

preme Court, to which the proceedings were removed by appeal, affirmed the decision of the lower court. The injunctions are, therefore, now in force, and will so continue until the determination of the litigation, and the parties to the unlawful bargain by which the Constitution was to be overridden and defied, are, for the time being-and, it cannot be doubted, will finally be frustrated in their injurious and illegal purpose. As a result of this proceeding, the belief is very general that the construction of the road will soon be resumed, and eventually be operated as an independent line of transportation.

The other proceeding begun by the Attorney General is aimed at the combination entered into by the several great trunk lines and their auxiliaries, and certain coal-mining companies to control, fix, and raise the rates of transportation of persons and commodities, and the price and amount of coal to be mined and old. This combination, variously known as the "Trunk Line Pool" and the "Coal Pool," is a manifest violation of law, as well of the principles of common law as of the plain provisions of the State Constitution. Its purpose is to raise the price and the amount of a necessary of life, and arbitrarily and at the will of the representatives of a few capitalists, and for their profit, to raise the cost of living of the people of a whole Etate, to interfere with their business and comfort, and to oblige an entire Commonwealth to pay tribute to the cupidity and speculating purposes of a few men. It is time that the people should have a clear declaration from the courts of the legality or illegality of such high-handed proceedings by the crea tures of the law; it is time that all citizens should know whether the Constitution, while strong enough to govern a private person, is a nullity as to corporations. If combination by individuals to raise the price of a necessary of life, or restrict its production, is un

lawful, and an offense indictable and punishable at common law as a crime, it is time to know from the courts whether the same acts, though more injurious and wide-spread in their effects when done by corporations, render their perpetrators amenable to no law, and cannot be either prevented or punished. It is to have this question determined that the Attorney General has begun the proceedings referred to. The task he has entered upon is a difficult one, and will call for the utmost skill, the most persistent zeal, and unwearying energy from whomever shall be the law officer of the State. The facts are not easy of ascertainment, because the parties to the combination, as would be expected, do their unlawful business in se

It will, therefore, be an onerous undertaking to conduct this litigation, and the Attorney General should be assisted by liberal appropriations to defray the necessary cost of preparing and conducting a suit of such magnitude. Its ultimate result cannot, I think, be doubtful, for its is not to be conceived that an undeviating line of decisions will be overruled, and principles of law, as old as the beginnings of English jurisprudence, will be ignored and overturned to give validity and judicial sanction to the confederated power of corporations to impose burdens at pleasure upon the people. The need of rigid enforcement of the Constitutional provisions regulating corporations is emphasized by the litigations begun by the Attorney General.

There could not be a more open, inexcusable, and clear defiance of the fundamental law than the purchase and control of the South Pennsylvania and Beech Creek railroads, and the "pooling" arrangement to control traffic and fix charges. Yet the former was unhesitatingly attempted, with the public avowal by the parties that the Constitution did not apply to them, and was powerless to prevent the accomplish

ment of their purposes; and the "pools" have been formed, and will be in the same manner defended by the parties claiming exemption from the law. Indeed, the railroad corporations of this State have never pretended to obey the Constitution; they have studiously ignored its authority, obstructed its operation, sneered at all attempts to enforce it, and have systematically claimed, and acted upon the claim, that they were superior to and unaffected by its mandates. This persistent attitude towards the supreme law of the State is not to be wondered at when we find the Legislatures of the past occupying almost the same attitude. It is hardly to be hoped that a railroad corporation will pay respect to the law, if the members of the General Assembly, sworn to obey, support, and defend the Constitution, array themselves in hostility to its provisions.

For twelve years, the seventeenth article, governing railroads, has been a dead letter, so far as legislative enforcement of its is concerned. The General Assembly has not attempted to give it force, and has repeatedly defeated all proposed legislation intended to carry it into effect. Discrimination in charges and facilities for transportation is as wide-spread and injur ious as it ever was; railroads still continue to carry on other business than that of common carrying, and free passes are as openly issued as ever, and received and used by officers of the law as well as by private persons. Yet, against all these acts there is the plainest and most imperative prohibition in the seventeenth article, as well as an equally mandatory direction to the Legislature to enact statutes to give the Constitutional regulations effect. That they have not been given effect is known of all men. At the session of 1883, confessedly impotent bills were passed and became laws, but no judicial proceedings have been de termined under them, and the violations of the law they were intended to reach still continue.

The fact is that at no time has a hearty support been given by the General Assembly to this part of the fundamental law. The published debates disclose that the hostility of many members of the Legislature to its enforcement has been publicly avowed on the floor of both bodies, and the wisdom of the law denied and inveighed against. It is earnestly submitted that the duty of the members of the General Assembly to obey the Constitution is unconditional; they have no legal or moral right to refuse to enforce it because of any doubts they may have of its wisdom or expediency; the action of the people in adopting the instrument as their organic law made it the supreme power in the State, and of binding force upon all persons, but especially upon the officers chosen by the

ie to execute their will, and who have sworn to obey, support, and defend it.

This conception of duty leaves no room for delay or hesitation in the passage of the legislation commanded by the Constitution. It is an indefensible default that for so long a time the seventeenth article has been unenforced. Longer delay will only add to the enormity of the disobedience, and will provoke greater discontent among the people. Prompt, full, and cordial compliances with the law is called for alike by official fidelity and the explicit and solemn promise of disobedience contained in the official oath of all public officers. I have so repeatedly and earnestly called the attention of the Legislature to this grave matter in two former messages, that it would be of no avail to repeate at length what was then recommended. You are referred to these two communications for the views of the Executive in detail. It is again urged, however, that no legislation will be effective on this subject that does not declare a violation of the provisions of the seventeenth article referred to a crime, and affix adequate fine and imprisonment as a penalty