Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1852-08-13
LEWISBURG UNION COUNTY, PENN FRIDAY AUGUST 49, 1852

:. public interest, but it would be wron:
against the company first Incorporated
whose stock, subscribed in confidence d
the good faith of the State, would b
: greatly reduced in value, AMI perhap.
rendered worthless. This would be sucl
violation of justice that no one wou Il
! expect to see perpctrated by the Repre-
sentativcs of people who love the right
aud hate the wrong, ike those Of Penn
sylvania The improbaJi!ity that tho
rival corporations were intended by the
General Assembly, to be clothed with
equal power to make the same road along
the same route, is iniaitely increas ed,
when we Gud that no provision is made
for settling in any legal way, the innu-
lncrable disputes which in that case must
necessarily arise between them.
We assume that it is practicable to
make both Roads, and practicable it doubt
less is, at least in that sense in wi ich
anything is practicable by those who have
the command Of very large means, and
are willing to use them unsparipgly.
Nevertheless the choice of the best loca-
ton, especially in the narrow parts of the
valley, or where the river washes the foot
of tie mountains may be of such immense
value to the party which gets it that it
would be fiercely contested for. How is
such a contest to be settled? Shall it be
determined by the wager of battle :? Or
in what other form shall the appeal to
force be made? The wisdom of the State
has furnished no law to settle it by but
the law of the strongest. The struggle
would not cease with the survey, and
when the building of the two roads would
bring thither thousands Of excitable
men, the probability Of violence and
bloodshed would be very great. Sup
posing the road to be made, and the cars
and locomotives of the respective compa-
MES to be running side by side, apd some
times crossing each others track, what
hope could be entertained that they would
regard each others convenience and in
tcrest in such manner as to keep the
peace and avoid collisions dangerous to
property and life?
Certainly the least desirable of all
things would be two railroads, thus lying
together, interfering with each and con-
Quoted by rival and hostile companies.
The most extravagant and wasteful expen-
diture of capital which can well be con-
ceived of would be that of the millions
which, according to the defendants
opinion, the Legislature meant to have
thrown away on this double enterprize.
Perhaps it has never been heard of before
that any legislative body in this Union,
or elsewhere in the civilized world, has
created such difficulty in the prosecution
of internal improvements, or adopted any
measure so full fraught as this would
be with impolicy, wrong and peril. These
considerations are sufficient to induce Il
careful examination of the statute before
we adopt the construction contended for.
When the Legislature means to invade
previously invested rights, to disregard
the public interest and endanger the peace
of the Commonwealth, its intention must
be expressed in terms free from all am
biguity.
One argument has been used by the
defendants counsel, which, at first, seemed
not to be without weight. 1t was con-
tended that tue purpose of the sccocd
law was to give Philadelphia the advan-
taces to which she was fairly entitled and
to prevent Baltimore from competing with
her. 1t is natural and commenlable in
the Legislature to guard the interests of
cur commercial metropolis, and perhaps
not less 50 to feel some jealousy OF u rival
city. If, therefore, the Susluehanna
Company's charter is likely to benefit
Baltimore and injure Philadelphia, this
would have been very good reason for
refusing it at the beginning. But being
granted, and the aversion to its inexpe-
diency being once overcome by other con-
siderations, it seems like very slight
reason for authorizing another Company
to interfere with the rights it secures.
All the arguments Il prtori are there
fore against the defendant, and impose
upon us the necessity of giving to this
statute construction strongly in orrosi
ton to the right claimed under it. But
to Justify strict construction, 1t was not
necessary to consider the nature and cir
cumstances Of the particular law before
us, for it belongs to a class OF statutes
which by long established and well de-
fined rule of Interpretation in all the
States of the Union, as well as in England,
must receive, and uniform Iy have received
the s,rictcst construction. All acts Of in
corporation and acts extending the rri-
vileses of incorporated bodies, are to be
taken most strongly against the compa-
nies-whateyer is not expressly and un-
equivocaliy granted in such acts, is taken
to have been withheld, ii East 685. 4
Bingham 452. Barr & Adolph, GAG.
The same rule was laid down on very clear
terms by Chief Justice Marshall in Bill
lnss vs.. The Providence Bank, 4 Peters
514. In the Charles River Bridge vs..
The Warren Bridge, l Peter 52l, 1t was
placed on grounds SO impregnable by the
present Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States, that it is not
probable We will ever hear it seriously
questioned again. In this Court it has
been aften recognized, and SO far as l
know, never denied. See Easton Bank VS..
The Comm, 10 Barr. 442, and the cases
there cited