Opinion of the Court.

The charter of this company was subject to the legislative power over it of amendment, alteration, or repeal, specifically and under general law. Priv. & Spec. Laws Conn. vol. 5, pp. 543, 547; vol. 7, p. 466; vol. 8, p. 353; Spec. Laws Conn. 1881, p. 64; Stats. 1875, 278; Gen. Stats. 1888, § 1909; N. Y. & N. E. Railroad v. Waterbury, 60 Conn. 1.

The contention seems to be, however, that the legislature, in discharging the duty of the State to protect its citizens, has authorized by the enactment in question that to be done which is, in certain particulars, so unreasonable and so obviously unjustified by the necessity invoked as to bring the act within constitutional prohibitions.

The argument is that the existing grades of railroad crossings were legally established, in accordance with the then wishes of the people, but, with the increase in population, crossings formerly safe had become no longer so; that the highways were chiefly for the benefit of the local public, and it was the duty of the local municipal corporation to keep them safe; that this law applied to railroad corporations treatment never accorded to other citizens in allowing the imposition of the entire expense of change of grade, both costs and damages, irrespective of benefits, on those companies, and in that respect, and in the exemption of the town from its just share of the burden, denied to them the equal protection of the laws.

And further, that the order, and, therefore, the law which was held to authorize it, amounted to a taking of property without due process, in that it required the removal of tracks many feet from their present location, involving the destruction of much private property; the excavation of the principal highway and those communicating; and the building of an expensive iron bridge, all at the sole expense, including damages, of the company, without a hearing as to the extent of the several responsibilities of the company and the town, or as to the expense of the removal of this dangerous crossing as compared with other dangerous crossings, or of the degree of the responsibility of the company for the dangers existing at this particular crossing. The objection is not that hearing was

Opinion of the Court.

not required and accorded, which it could not well be in view of the protracted proceedings before the commissioners and the Superior Court and the review in the Supreme Court, but that the scope of inquiry was not as broad as the statute should have allowed, and that the particular crossing to be removed was authorized to be prejudged.

It is further objected that the Suprême Court had so construed the statute that upon the issue whether the financial condition of the company warranted the order, no question of law could be raised as to the extent of the burdens, which a certain amount of financial ability would warrant, and thus in that aspect by reason of the large amount of expenditure which might be, and as matter of fact was in this instance, required, the obligation of the contracts made by the company with the holders of its securities was impaired. Complaint is made in this connection of the striking out by the Superior Court of certain paragraphs of the petition on appeal, held by that court and the Supreme Court to plead mere matters of evidence, and the decision by the Supreme Court that all the material issues were met by the findings. Those issues were stated by the court to be whether or not the company's directors had removed or applied for the removal of a grade crossing as required by the statute; whether or not the grade crossing ordered by the commissioners to be removed was in fact a dangerous one which the directors ought to have removed, or for the removal of which the directors ought to have applied; and whether or not the company's financial condition was such as to warrant the order.

And upon these premises it is urged in addition that the right to amend the charter of the corporation was not controlling, because that did not include the right to arbitrarily deprive the stockholders of their property, which, though held by them, for purposes of management and control, under a corporate organization created by special law, was, nevertheless, private property, not by virtue of the charter, but " by force of the most fundamental and general laws of modern society, which from their nature necessarily protect alike and fully all legitimate acquisitions of the members of the com

Opinion of the Court.

munity, no matter whether held by them as individuals, or partnerships, or associations, or corporations."

The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the statute operated as an amendment to the charters of the railroad corporations affected by it; that as grade crossings are in the nature of nuisances, the legislature had a right to cause them to be abated, and to require either party to pay the whole or any portion of the expense; that the statute was not unconstitutional in authorizing the commissioners to determine their own jurisdiction, and that, besides, the right of appeal saved the railroad companies from any harm from their findings; that it was the settled policy of the State to abolish grade crossings as rapidly as could be reasonably done; and that all general laws and police regulations affecting corporations were binding upon them without their assent.

We are asked upon the grounds above indicated to adjudge that the highest tribunal of the State in which these proceedings were had, committed, in reaching these conclusions, errors so gross as to amount in law to a denial by the State of rights secured to the company by the Constitution of the United States, or that the statute itself is void by reason of infraction of the provisions of that instrument.

But this court cannot proceed upon general ideas of the requirements of natural justice apart from the provisions of the Constitution supposed to be involved, and in respect of them we are of opinion that our interposition cannot be successfully invoked.

As observed by Mr. Justice Miller in Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 104, the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be availed of "as a means of bringing to the test of the decision of this court the abstract opinions of every unsuccessful litigant in the state court of the justice of the decision against him, and of the merits of the legislation on which such a decision may be founded." To use the language of Mr. Justice Field, in Missouri Pacific Railway v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 520, "it is hardly necessary to say, that the hardship, impolicy, or injustice of state laws is not necessarily an objection to their constitutional validity; and that the remedy for evils of that character is to be sought from state legislatures."

Opinion of the Court.

The conclusions of this court have been repeatedly announced to the effect that though railroad corporations are private corporations as distinguished from those created for municipal and governmental purposes, their uses are public, and they are invested with the right of eminent domain, only to be exercised for public purposes; that therefore they are subject to legislative control in all respects necessary to protect the public against danger, injustice, and oppression; that the State has power to exercise this control through boards of commissioners; that there is no unjust discrimination and no denial of the equal protection of the laws in regulations applicable to all railroad corporations alike; nor is there necessarily such denial nor an infringement of the obligation of contracts in the imposition upon them in particular instances of the entire expense of the performance of acts required in the public interest, in the exercise of legislative discretion; nor are they thereby deprived of property without due process of law, by statutes under which the result is ascertained in a mode suited to the nature of the case, and not merely arbitrary and capricious; and that the adjudication of the highest court of a State, that, in such particulars, a law enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State, is valid, will not be reversed by this court on the ground of an infraction of the Constitution of the United States. Nashville &c. Railway v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174; Minneapolis &c. Railway v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Charlotte, Columbia &c. Railroad v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386; Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway v. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364. Judgment affirmed.

A post chaplain in the Army of the United States, commissioned by the President under the act of March 2, 1867, c. 145, § 7, is entitled, in computing his longevity pay under the act of July 15, 1870, c. 294, § 24, (Rev. Stat. § 1262,) to be credited with his service as a chaplain, employed by the officers composing the council of administration, at a military post approved by the Secretary of War, under the act of July 5, 1838, c. 162, § 18, and the acts supplementary thereto.

THIS was a petition filed in the Court of Claims by James A. M. La Tourrette, and prosecuted after his death by his executrix, to recover the sum of $333.75, for longevity pay as a chaplain in the Army from February 7, 1885, to April 26, 1887, inclusive. The facts found by the Court of Claims were in substance as follows:

On February 6, 1865, the claimant was elected and appointed chaplain for the post of Fort Columbus, New York Harbor, by the council of administration at the post, under the provisions of the act of July 5, 1838, c. 162, § 18; and of the supplementary acts of July 7, 1838, c. 194, § 2; March 2, 1849, c. 83, § 3; and February 21, 1857, c. 55, § 2. 5 Stat. 259, 308; 9 Stat. 351; 11 Stat. 163.

The action of the post council was approved by the Secretary of War; and the claimant's appointment or employment as post chaplain was subsequently announced in a special order of the War Department of May 19, 1866, as follows: "Fort Columbus, New York Harbor, is announced as a chaplain post, to date from February 6, 1865, in place of Fort Wood, New York Harbor, discontinued as such from that date. The Reverend James A. M. La Tourrette is announced as post chaplain to Fort Columbus, New York Harbor, from February 6, 1865. He will, in connection with his present duties at Fort Columbus, perform also those of Fort Wood, as heretofore."