Fry v. The State. lant's learned counsel have expressly waived all “technical objections" to the indictment. They do not claim "that the grand jury had no legal authority to enquire into the offence charged;" nor do they claim," that the indictment contains any matter which if true would constitute a legal justification of the offence charged, or other legal bar to the prosecution." But the appellant's motion was evidently founded upon the second statutory cause for quashing an indictment, namely, "That the facts stated do not constitute a public offence." 2 R. S. 1876, p. 399, sec. 101. The facts stated in the indictment in this case show, very clearly, that it was intended to charge the appellant, therein and thereby, with a violation of the provisions of the 5th section of an act entitled "An act regulating the issuing and taking up of tickets and coupons of tickets by common carriers, and defining the rights of holders thereof, and other matters in relation thereto," approved March 9th, 1875. 1 R. S. 1876, p. 259. It is earnestly insisted, by the appellant's counsel, that this entire statute is unconstitutional and void, upon the following grounds: 1. Because it is in violation of section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States, which provides: "The Congress shall have power:- * * * "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." 2. Because it is also an infraction of at least two provisions of the constitution of Indiana. * * "1. It impairs the obligations of contracts; "2. It undertakes to grant to carriers of passengers privileges and immunities which it does not extend to other citizens upon the same terms, or upon any terms whatever." We will consider the appellant's objections to the con Fry v. The State. stitutionality and validity of the statute, in the inverse of the order in which his attorneys have presented them. We have already given the title of the act, and for the purpose of convenient reference we will set out the entire statute, in this connection, as follows: "SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That it shall not be lawful, from and after the taking effect of this act, for any officer or agent of any railroad company, steamboat, or other public conveyance of passengers for hire or reward, or for the operator or operators, manager or managers (or his or their agent or agents), of any such railroad, steamboat or other public conveyance, to issue or sell any pass, ticket, or coupon of a ticket, or certificate evidencing the holders' right to travel over or be transported in or upon such railroad, steamboat or other public conveyance, subject to any condition contained in or endorsed upon, or appended to such pass, ticket, coupon or certificate, whereby the liability of such carrier shall be abridged or limited, or whereby the rights of the holder of such pass, ticket, coupon or certificate shall be decreased or abridged, unless such condition shall be printed in nonpareil type, or in type or characters as large or larger than nonpareil type. Any such officer, agent, operator or manager, or the agent of such operator or manager, who shall violate the provisions of this section. of the act, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not less than ten dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars, for each pass, ticket or coupon which he shall issue or sell, contrary to the provisions of this section: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall be held or construed to change, or in any manner affect, the law as it now exists, regulating the liability of common carriers, or to enlarge their right to limit, or restrict their liabilities on account of having such attempted limitation printed, as required by this act. Fry v. The State. "SEC. 2. That it shall be the duty of the owner or owners, or operator or operators, of every railroad and steamboat or other public conveyance for the transportation of passengers for hire, or reward, to provide each agent, who may be authorized to sell tickets or other certificates evidencing the right of the holder thereof to travel or be transported upon such railroad, steamboat or other public conveyance, with a certificate, setting forth the authority of such agent to make such sales, which certificates shall be signed by the managing officer, and duly attested by the corporate seal of the owner or operator of such railroad, steamboat or other public conveyance. "SEC. 3. It shall be the duty of the owner or owners, operator or operators, of every railroad, steamboat, or other public conveyance of passengers for hire or reward, to provide at each agency, for the sale of tickets, for the redemption of the whole of any ticket or any part or parts, or coupon of any ticket, which they may have sold, and which the purchaser, for any reason, shall not have used, at the following rates, namely: where the whole ticket is presented for redemption, at the full price paid for the same, and when a part or coupon of the ticket only is presented for redemption, then the redemption shall be at a rate which shall be equal to the difference between the price paid for the whole ticket and the cost of a ticket between the points for which the part of said ticket was actually used; and the sale, by any person, of the unused portion of any ticket, otherwise than by the presentation of the same for redemption as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than five dollars, nor more than fifty dollars: Provided, however, That this act shall not prohibit any person who shall have purchased a ticket from an agent, authorized, as by this act provided, with the bona fide intention of travelling on the same, from selling such ticket, or any part or coupon Fry v. The State. thereof, to any other person, to be used in good faith by such person in travelling over such railroad, or in or upon such steamboat, or other public conveyance. "SEC. 4. If any owner, operator or manager of any railroad, steamboat or other public conveyance of passengers, or his agent, shall violate any of the provisions of the third section of this act, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than ten, nor more than one hundred dollars. "SEC. 5. It shall not be lawful for any person, not pos sessed of the authority mentioned in the second section of this act, and not evidenced as therein provided for, to sell, barter or transfer, within this State, for any consideration whatever, the whole or any part of any ticket or tickets, passes or other evidence of the holder's title to travel on, or be transported in, or over any railroad, steamboat or other public conveyance, whether the same be situated, owned or operated within or without this State, except as provided for in section three. "SEC. 6. It shall be the duty of every agent who shall be authorized to sell tickets or parts of tickets, or coupons, as is provided for in the second section of this act, or other evidences of the holder's title, to travel on any railroad, or in any steamboat or public conveyance, to keep his certificate of authority posted in a conspicuous place in his office, and also to exhibit the same to any person desirous of purchasing a ticket, or to any officer of the law who may request to see or inspect such certificate of authorization. "SEC. 7. Any person who shall violate any provisions of either the fifth or sixth sections of this act, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not less than ten, nor more than one hundred dollars. "SEC. 8. The provisions of this act shall not apply to special, half-fare or excursion tickets." Fry v. The State. It is the settled doctrine of the decisions of this court, that "The legislative authority of this State is the right to exercise supreme and sovereign power, subject to no restrictions except those imposed by our own constitution, by the federal constitution, and by the laws and treaties made under it. This is the power under which the Legislature passes all laws." Beauchamp v. The State, 6 Blackf. 299. Doe v. Douglass, 8 Blackf. 10; The Lafayette, etc., R. R. Co. v. Geiger, 34 Ind. 185. It must appear very clearly, that the legislation is in conflict with some express provision of the constitution, or the statute will be upheld. It is claimed by the appellant that the statute, above quoted, is in conflict with that provision of the Bill of Rights, which declares that no law shall ever be passed "impairing the obligation of contracts." We fail to see this matter in the light in which the appellant's counsel have presented it. But, if it could be said that the statute did impair the obligation of contracts existing at the time of its passage, the effect would be, as it seems to us, that, as to such existing contracts, the statute would be inoperative and of no effect; while it might be and would be, if no other objection existed, constitutional and valid as to all future contracts. The transaction, on which the indictment in this case was predicated, occurred nearly four years, as alleged, after the passage of the act in question, and it can not be said, we think, that the statute impaired the obligation of any contract in connection with that transaction. This objection to the constitutionality of the statute was not well taken, and can not be sustained, in any view of the question. The second objection urged by the appellant, to the validity of the statute, under our state constitution, is, that it is in conflict with that section of the Bill of Rights, which declares, that "The General Assembly shall not grant to |