316 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Feb. 26,

directions. In substance, the corporation is making a main
line from Baltimore to Washington with a possible branch
to the lower Potomac. The two plans are radically different
in design and in effect.

The corporators in 1855, published a report which they had
procured to be made by J. R. Trimble, Esq., the engineer
employed by them to examine the routes proposed for the Bal-
timore and Potomac Rail Road. The publication was evi-
dently designed to recommend the charter and the work to
public favor. It does not once allude to a Washington
branch. It describes several routes which had been carefully
examined—all leading from Baltimore to the lower Potomac.
It insists with emphasis upon the various advantages anti-
cipated from the work, all from the main line. It refers to
Washington only to point out the propriety of avoiding that
place in order to excel in speed and comfort the Northern and
Southern lines which connect there. "Nine persons out of
ten" the report affirms, regard the delay and changes there
with impatience and dislike." So far from aiming at com-
petition with the Washington branch of the Baltimore and
Ohio Rail Road the report deprecates the suspicion of rivalry.

Whatever may have been the original intention of the Leg-
islature and of the corporators in 1853 or 1855, the important
question now is, whether we should permit the lateral road
to Washington to beconstructed in the manner, by the parties
and for the purposes which are now disclosed, and in the ac-
tual circumstances of the State.

Fortunately, the Legislature reserved on the very face of the
charter "the right to alter, or amend, or repeal this charter
at its pleasure."

The power to alter or repeal is absolute and unlimited.
It is for the Legislature alone to determine upon considera-
tion of equity or policy, how and when it shall be exercised.

Those who have made contracts with the corporation have
made them with this provision of the charter before their
eyes, and every contract with a corporation derives its whole
efficacy on one side from the act of incorporation.

It is suggested by the committee that the power of amend-
ment cannot be exercised now, as proposed, because a con-
tract has been made for the construction of the Washington
branch, and the amendment would "impair the obligation"
of that contract. This idea is confessed to be novel, and it is
supported only by a fanciful analogy between the political
authority of a State to regulate the institutions which it
creates and a private letter of attorney, which is revocable
until the power is executed, but not afterwards. The analogy
might be a little less remote, if the supposed letter reserved