The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-20 00:00:00

FRENCH RAILWAYS and ENGLISH

CONTRACTORS.
Some months since we stated the particulars of a dis-
puted claim which had been set up by the authorities of
the city of Rouen for the levying of a sort of municipal
toll or tax upon all material included in a certain
schedul,e the terms of the municipal regulation im-
posing the tax being as follows:—" That every person
who shall gather, prepare, or manufacture (qui recolte,
prepare ou fizbrique), within the limits over which the
(o. t •oi) city toll extends, is bound, under pain of con-
fiscation of the articles gathered, prepared, or manu-
factured (recoltes, prepares ou fabriques), as well as of a
penalty of from 100 to 200 francs, to make a declaration
of the same, and to pay the taxes thereupon." Now it
appears that amongst the articles enumerated in the
schedule affixed to the above regulation are included
two kinds of stone, known by the distinctive appellations
of moellons and bizets. Moellon signifies a rough sort of
boulder stone, and Liza a stone of rough blackish hue
and of similar character, and both are used in the em-
bankments of railways just to they are dug up with the
earth, without the slightest employment of any labour
in their fashion or shape ; so that they can scarcely be
said to be prepares, or prepared. This was the question
at issue between the city authorities and Messrs.
Mackenzie and Brassey, the contractors of the earth-
works of the Rouen and Havre Railway.
The minutes of the proceedings which originally were
commenced before the local tribunal at Rouen, show the
facts of the case to be as follows :—That, on the 16th
of May last, the officers of the city tolls saw a certain
number of waggons containing moellons et bizets travel-
ling on the line of railway then in course of construction,
and coming out of the tunnel which is under and within
the city of Rouen, and so proceed from the interior to
the commune or district beyond and without the bounda-
ries of the said city. The fact is, that the line of rail-
way runs by a tunnel under the city of Rouen, and, after
leaving the tunnel, it is carried forward on an embank-
ment, and the moellons et bizets are nothing more than
the interior stones of a certain size, which, being dug out
with the earthwork, are heaped pell-mell into the wag-
gons, and sent forward to furnish material for the em-
bankment.
It was urged, on the part of the city, that the stones
were, there could be no doubt, included in the tariff, and
subject to a duty or toll to the city of 70 centimes
per stere. On the other hand, it was urged that these
moellons et bizets found on the waggons could not be con-
templated by the tariff, since, in their actual condition,
they were only rubbish, misshapen unhewn masses,
and, in fact, were stone and flint, dug out from
the excavation in the railway, and because in
that state they were, in fact, only fit for
making embankments on another part of the rail-
way, where they were being carried at the time,
as we should say, laid in the declaration; and that this
destination, the only one for which they were calculated,
should protect them from the opera:ion of the law in
question. The argument that there bad been no labour
bestowed upon them was met by the single fact of labour
being employed in their excavation, and that the stones in
question might have been used for building purposes in
their then condition. It was in vain that the defendants
again urged that the terms of the article imposing the duty
did not apply—that the stones in question were neither
recolles prepares ou fabriques ; for the Court de-
sired it to be understood that the article was in-
tended to include, tout creation, without exception,
every production from the interior of objects sus-
ceptible of being subjected to the droit d'entree.
In vain Messrs. Mackenzie and Brassey declare
that they only intended to employ these stones in
the aforesaid embankment, and that they had no inten-
tion of employing them for building purposes—had
they so used them, they would confess the justice of the
case, but the Court would hear no plea of the sort, and
pronounced the contractors guilty. The decision (dis-
engaging the question from the mass of legal quibbling
which surrounds it) appears to us an absurdity. In nar-
rating the circumstances of the case we have mentioned
that the case first came on before the tribunal at Rouen
on the 12th of June, 1845. On the 18th of July, again,
an appeal was lodged before the Court at Rouen, and the
final decision was, through another appeal to the Court
of Cassation, on the third of this month. The costs fell
,on the contractors—Railway Record._