Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1852-07-30

I'd of the susquehanna, and open its wealt
K mineral and agricultural, to the world
too long locked up from easy access
Sc market; the Commissioners proceed, Il
I'd route is surveyed, the line is located, Il
e. stock is subscribed, the Charter obtaine
y the Company formed, and their Enyinee
1t are about to begin their work on the Ii,
is designated. lin the meanwhile, in lS5.
/ the Sunbury & Erie Railroad Compan
e not satisfied with the enjoyment of the
c own neglected and non-used franchises, 9
n to the Legislature for relief. They g,
d itj and at the same time, in the spirit
. intrusion, they ask for more they ask ft
e what why, that they inay be allowed t
n run down the Valley of the Schuylkill, t
: Philadelphia. That is allowed, withou
l let or hndrance, and then they ask more
3 they ask to be allowed to run down tn
Valley Of the Susguehanna from Sunbur5
. Is it to be supposed that the Legislature
for Il paltry tax, would grant this at tn
cost Of the public faith, and in violation Q
private rights already vested? Is it to b
supposed, regarding the i" time and the Cir
cumstances," that the Legislature woult
wantonly aud wickedly grant this righ
which it had before granted, a thing it car
not do ? for the King himself, says Black
stone, " having given franchise, can moi
bcs.cv the same identical one on another
for that would prejudice the former grant. .
1t would be harsh Interpretation Of theil
intention to say that this was their mo
tive.
"Ea est occipieah, faterpre,atio guae
ritio careut." Thus wisely does the law
say that that is to be accepted as the in
depreciation, which does not intend n :oso"9.
: Does the Legislature enact law which ;s
intended as wrong. Why, if they did,
it would be nuliity, not only under our
law, but at common law--constitution or
no constitution. l say, and say by the
authority Of Coke and Holt, that no act of
the Legislature can be law which dclber-
ately works wrong II Mod. 627 !:
"When an act Of Parliament is against
common right or reason, or repugnant or
impossible to be performed, the common
law shall control it and adjudgc j: to be
void" The legislature conferred the fran.
chise thus, and in this wise It said. "wo
have granted this right Of way to the Sus-
quehanna Company they may not con.
struct the road We want the road, and We
will now give it to you cas- hereinafter
provided" that is, subject to "repeal,'
subject to " conditional stipulation, that
if the Susquehanna Railroad Company
shall not do their part, d" then and in that
case, you may construct the road which we
want. You may go by the Valley of the
Susquehanna, you may go south Of Sun
bury, and enjoy the franchises they have
forfeited and abandoned" This is all the
legislature intended. This is the ccnstruc-
tion that upholds the statute. Thus did
the legislature act, "m res mayis rdAeut
quan, rsreat," secure their object, and
maintain their faith and it is by this rem
dcring alone that the Court can reconcile
its acts and give force to its statutes with
cut doing harm to any one.
Shall it be said that it was the intention
of the Legislature virtually to repeal the
statute of 81, by the 9th section of the
statute of 80, and that merely BY con-
s,ruction for repeal it would be, to allow
the Sunhury & Erie Railroad Company to
trespass on the line We have before located
end occupied These two Companies can
not exist together. That is out of the
question. They are unnecessary, together.
Can it be said that the Legislature inten-
ded the construction Of two roads from the
saIue point, through the same places, to
the same terminus, and by the sam, line,
at the same time? The proposition needs
but to he stated, to refutc itself Why,
no one would ever thus stullify Lcgisla-
ture to suppose that it would direct such
a thing to be done by cotemporaneors en-
actmeDts, much less to suppose that it
would do so in dcrogation of franchises
granted and right. vested. 1t may be
said, and will be said, that if the Lcgislr-
ture have so done, we have no right to
complain. say We have 4 right to CON-
plain If the Legislature has so done, for the
practical effect has been and will be cvic-
tion from the very line we had occupied
by survey, and which had been dedicated
by law to our use the practical conse-
qucnce has beer and will be the deteriora-
ton Of our stock, and the destruction Of
our credit; and if we had road in full
action, the practical result would be iu-
cyitable ruin and bankruptcy. The State
has not done this the Legislature did
not intend this; the proper way to con-
strue her acts is not to render the law so
as to work harm, but to try its right in
tendment by the import of its words,
" not by the crooked cord of discretion,
but by the golden metewand of the law"
so that no mischief may be done, but the
law upheld and mems rights maintained.
And this has been the method adopted by
judicial tribunals whenever they have been
called on to reconcile conflicting and am-
biguous statutes.
1t has been ruled in England, in 4 T.
Il. "a, Williams vs. Pritchard, that a sub
act Of Parliament will not con-
troll the provisions Of a prior statute when
the "intention of the Legislature was ap-
parent that the subsequent act should
not" have such an operation. There,
+" even though the words of such statute,
taken strictly and dramatically, would re-
- f...,., at xhn .o,,rt, nf I,,,