Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1839-01-24
cinnatli and Char
lesion 4. r. Com
/ pany,
) s.':.s.s-.- vs.
John }. CbappelI,
The Same,
W.,
Dr.. Rees. and Mrs.
Rees.
Opinion.
Richardson Judge.

Rees.
This Court has weighed the argument,
so we'll presented on the part of the appel
lants; and appreciates its force.
The practical power cOntided To the Rail
Road Company. by their charter, is great;
and from its very nature. such pOwer
might be abused, or pcrverted; and land
holders annoyed, because the route of this
great commercial. way is, from necessity,
left TO the understanding. skill and discre-
ton OF the company; and their authority
might he practically enforced, with too
little consideration for individual justice or
human feelings.
But, for any such abuse of power. the
laws supply ample remedy. An indepen-
dent jury ia a refreshing sight and sure re-
fuge III every instance; and is secured by
The charter; and, for continued abuse or
misuse any charter may be repealed.
Bu' when the Legislature have confided
express p,~er, ii is noi for this Court to
anticipate abuses, and offer to restrain
them. when our judicial province might be
hereafter III their supervision aud currec-
tion. AL powers, great aud small, may
be made oppressive. Yet, still. our neces-
sites require them TO exist in some tribu-
nal.
If the Rail Road route had been given
Tor common highway, and surveyors
named to locate its track through tho en-
tire State, and contractors hired TO construct
such road, with the emolumen mt Of toll gates,
provided tor compensation. the objections
offered would be of similar character to
those offered in the araumen, for the pre-
sent defendants. There would be no diff
ference in principle or degree.
The true and subs,a an.iaI difficulty felt by
the Court, is in coming TO the conclusion,
tha. The Rail Road is TO he put on The
footing aud character Of a highway: and is
erected. not for private, hut for such yeuer-
at purposes, AS to render it an institution
tor -,srh public purposes.
Nut, according 10 the view. taken in the
circuit decision. that The application Of the
e"'nen' domain OF government, is, from
lts essential nature, very Various: and 1"
br male, according to The successive e.i
Srhr'es of the State. il may be rationallv
assumed, that Rail Roads, although Of re-
cent origin, have already become of incaI-
cnlable public importance; Thai tho en-
iarx"d ends and objects of thi. great Rail
k"sd especially. are t;r The trans pnr, arion.
and intercourse, commercial and social, of
several different States, whose interests
confidence that belongs to such a work
sacredly lnl6Iled
This characteristic il irreconcileable with
the proper conception OF a mere private
way.
Again: Rail Roads have been recosni
zed As highways, in other States; with
whose adjmdications upon grea, subjects Of
commerce and reciprocal advantage, n H.
hernl county ought to be observed through
out the States; aud the same great objects
steadily kept in view, by all, who value
Mai! Roads, as new moral cement of the
American Union, AS well as the useful
vehicles of our vast and increasing internal
commerce; and thus uniting in their natu-
raj operation, pecuniary profit, with moral
fitness and the polite establishment of sn
may independent States.
May moi Rail Roads. then he fairly con-
sIdered in character and objects. land ours
more especially JAS International, and there
fore, public highways!
With such sentiments. and for such mir
poses, we are bound to consider the great
ends Of our own Rail Road system, and
to inquire under their guidance, whether
the cnineni domain of government NAV
not iairly and nationally be applied for its
advancement in the very way pointed out
by the present charter of The Louisville.
Cincinnati and Charleston Rail Road
Company.
In such an instance, we should especial
~ require that the charter shall be clearly
unconstitutional before we put il i'm the
power of any one ireeholder to arrest the
progress of SD great a work of usefulness
and high considerations. 1t is not enough
that The human mind may balance on The
subject.
But lake another point Of view which
cannon help thinking Of lasting importance.
Such Rail Road as ours, should be held
as highway, on account of its great Oh
jecis, anh for The same reasons To be ke,t
under public control. Is it not wise 70
hold such company as the guardians or
lessees of grcaI highway. endowed with
public franchise; yet subject TO the con
troll winch their purposes Indicate IA nee
essnry aud proper; for such an establish.
ment; and which the general righr TO use
the road absolutely require!
Such road must be held as a part of
The public domain. farmed out TO iudividu
al men. fol lis practical administration
and order alone, and if placed aloof from
sncn control, would inevitably becnme
suspected Of par,ali,y, aud odious to the
people.
Since The argument before this court,
our attention has been turned to the case
of Beckn,an vs.. the Saratoga and Schen.
ec'ady Rail Road Company. 1t is found
in Pages Ch. Rep. 2,l vol. As, and il is :,
learned decision of Chancellor Wulworth
of New York.
Ii will he satisfactory TO the parties con:
ccrned in Interest, To know, lhnt the follow