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

/, construed so as to impair our rights
= control the provisions Of our prior statute
o In The second place, IF the Legislator
e by the 9th section Of the statute Of '5:
C has given the Sunbury & Erie Railrca
|, Company the right to run down the vale
8 of the Sus1uehanna and to occupy OF
C site, it is such an abridgment Of cur righ
), as would destroy our franchise, invalida'
:, vested grant, impair the obligations Of
r contract, and, as such, be wholly void.
6 it will be unnecessary to cite author
t ties here, to show that the charter held b
f us from the State, is 4 contract. Tha
r hes been decided, over and over again, til
, it has passed into text law Neither vii
, it be necessary to remind the Court, tia
t from the days of Fletcher and Peck, Ter
ret and Taylor, the Dartmouth College case
, down to Sturges vs. Crowninshields, tha
such contracts have been held inviolable
and all attempts by Legislatures to impair
them, have been rebuked and repulsed b,
the Supreme Court of the United States
Sovereign as State may be, she can d.
no wrong ike this, and her " strcng lance
will hurtless break when leveled against
her own plighted faith, her own solemn
grant. Under the protection of this wise
provision of the constitution, which was
but in afirmance of the common law doc
trine of sovereign grants, under its pro-
lection bas this country prospered, under
its protection have men been tempted to
hazard their savings and earnings in enter
prses like this. Had the law been other
wise, ne man would invest his capital in
the erection Of the many works Of public
usefulness which adorn our land, and
which have aided us in our uhcxampled
prosperity, and opened avenues of rom
munication which must otherwise have
remained closed for ever.
The comroh law, says Edward Coke,
"will in doubtful case, uphold the king
grant and interpret it in favor of the gran
tee, benchciuiy for the sake Of has honrc."
The 10th section of the 1st article Of the
constitution of the United States, and the
judicial Interpretation given to 1t, has also
resolved that such grants shall be held sa-
cred and inviolate, "beneicially::uphold-
ing them fer the sake Of the hcnor' of the
sovercigus who grant them, and for the
protection of the citizens who have acqui-
red rights under them. No " fierce de-
mocracy" can, in this land of law, lay
rude and plundering hands upon the pro-
perty which the State itself has created,
and for the security Of which The State ha,
pledged its solemn word under its solemn
grant. The State of Pennsylvania can
not revoke this grant to us. 1t can not
resume the franchise with which we are
invested, much less can it, by Indirect and
Subsequent legislation, create rival, and
empower it to trespass upon our property,
and wrest from us the very ground before
dedicated by law, given by grant to US as
cur property. and which was the peculiar
privilege conferred on US BY the charter
we hcld. This is net doubtful law. This
is not dcbateable question, and even if
it were doubtful, it would BECOME this
Court to give such 4 construction to these
statutes of 81 and 52 as would avoid tina.
doubt and uphold our grant at res nao5is
roieat guam y,ercat Place such con-
structicn on the statute Of 80 as will per-
NIT the Sunbury & Erie Railroad Company
to run down our line, pass through the
same towns, and you will nullify our grant
and virtually wipe out our charter from the
statute book, Such an Interpretation
would act directly upon our contract, by
excluding rs from our location, which is
all that the State has given us. The right
of choice in selecting route, is a part of
our franchise. Gill & johnson, Canal
Company vs. Il. K. Company And go i.
has been determined in one Of the most
investigated causes on record ;
a case since cited as authority by Mr.. jus
tice Story in the Supreme Court Of TIE
United States. In the same case il was
held that such right of way, such choice
Of way, " independently Of any survey,"
(Which, be it here observed, is nc. our
case, for we have surveyed and located this
very line taken by the Sunbury s Erie
Company independently of any
other survey, the State can not re-assert
or grant to any other. 4 Gill & Johnson
ibid. "It is prior right to which all
subsequent grants must yield, and any
of the right of choice in select
ing the route impairs the obligation Of the
Gill & johnson. And fur
ther, there is no differenc, in principle be-
tween law that in terms impairs the ob
legations of contracts, and one that produ-
ccs the same effect in the construction and
practical execution of it. Both are void /
Now can language be palmer Or simpler
than this? This is our case in words, as
the case from which cite was almost in
point of fact identical with the case We now
have under consideration.
l say again, that under the authorities
in the Supreme Court of the United States
and of every State in the Union, the Le-
gislature can not, it dare not, violate SOL
emn grant, and either by direct or indirect ,
means impair its contracts and wantonly /
and without sufficient cause revoke the |
franchises conferred by charter. / say it
dare not do so; and if through ignorance,
accident, or perverse and wicked exercise
of authority, it assumes to do SO, the law /
which alike governs and protects all, and
of which you are the sacred depositaries,
the law "whose seat is the bosom of God,
whose voice ia the harmony of nature"