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


. subsided, the stream Of law will still flo
!, on with placid, broad, deep, clear current
!, undisturted aud unruflled to the might
] ocean Of Justice and Truth. In othe
y countries, sovereign power Is absolute
r whether it be in Russia or in the Englis
g Parliament, it is absolute not SO, here
9 Thank God . sovereign power here is gov
!, erned by established fundamental law. be
yond which charmed circle it withers int
paltry insignifcance, and the inviolsbl
I rights Of men loom up majestically, anc
, are alone supreme.
Cayuga Bridge VS.. Magee, 6 Wend. 95
Oriental Bank vs. Fisher, 6 Sheply, IO9
Trustees Of Caledonia School vs. Bart, /
Yer. 632. Buck vs. Lebanon, IL New
Hamp. 10. Commercial Bank of Natchez
vs. State, 6 Smeeds g. Marsh, GOO
Bank vs. Chambers, s Smeeds & Marsh, 8
Enfield Toll Bridge vs. Connection: Rive,
Company, ! Conn. Rep, 81. Wallis vs.
Sietson, 2 Mass, l45. Smith VS.. Hark-
ness, 3 Ire: Equity 613. Stark VS., Nc
Cowan, / Mott x McCord, 4O1. Turnpike
Company Us. Amour, Pa. Rep, 1874.
Commonwealth ex rel. Claghorn VS.. Cullen,
Harris, 139
in these eases this Court has affirmed
this doctrine, and distinctly repudiated the
right of the Legislature to pass supple
mental acts, altering charter granted
without the consent Of the grantees up
holding and applying in its broadest sense
the doctrine of Ter ret VS.. Taylor, and the
famous Dartmouth College ease.
The only case on record, which can By
the remotest application be cited as au-
thority to countervail the principle l here
contend for, is the case of the Charles
River Bridge VS.. Warren Bridge Company,
l Peters Rep.
A careful examination of that case will
show that it has no application to this
that there is no identity between its facts
and the facts of this case.
The Sunbury & Erie Railroad Company
ask to be allowed to take the site of our
road as it has been dedicated by law to our
use, and as We have hitherto adopted and
occupied it. They ask to be suffered to
run over the same ground and pass thro'
the same towns to and from the same ter
mini, to our exclusion and to the entire
destruction of the franchise granted to us.
That is destruction TO us, direct destruc-
ton. That is direct ERECTION But such
is no. the case of the Charles River Bridge
Company. In that case it was a conflict
between two contiguous bridges, not on
the siie-the rival Companies not confic-
ting for the route, as in this case, but con-
tending for the tolls. If the Sunbury &
Erie Road were to have been authorized
to start from this town, and by lateral
route--not down the valley of the Sus-
quehanna, and through Halifax and Mil
lcrsburg-but by lateral route, running
south, make road that would divert our
freight and travel and diminish our re-
ceipts-btH we could not complain Of
that we would not complain of, and that
would be the Charles River Bridge Com
rany-bu; is that, this caseI Onol Their
complaint vas diversion Of travel aud
diminution of tolls-our complaint is an
exclusion from our route and an actual de-
of our franchises. They ask to
evict US, and occupy our very ground. In
the Charles River case, the Legislature,
when in 1892 it extended its charter, put
on the record "pro bono pnb,ico," notice
of it. intention to reserve the right To
other bridges. This was res
crvation, and notice to the Company,
which can not be found in our case, and
which was one of the main reasons that
the decision of the Court in (
that instance. In that case, the defence
was that the State had never granted what
was claimed by the Charles River Bridge
that it had reserved by special and re-
peated notice, and by frequent exercise of
that reserved authority, the right to cor-
struct and authorize the construction of
adjacent and contiguous bridges-that the .
Charles River Bridge claimed right with
no "definite limits, no reasonable limits"
and thus the conditions were unreasonable,
aud such grant es the law would not
presume the Legislature to have made.
We have definite, reasonable limits"
and it is because these defendants invade
those limits, and actually take possession
Of our boards and our planks," to use
The language of that case, that we come
here and complain, and which in that case
was conceded would be an invasion of
their rights. In that case, Nr. Justice
Story has in direct words ruled this case
He says thus: "No one ever imagined
hat the Legislature might grant new
with exactly the same location
and termini" IL Peters, 636
And that is what these defendants have
imagined, and now come and ask the Court
to uphold them in this, their wild fancy,
their freak of imagination. In that case
It was conceded that even it could not be
sustained if the Constitution and laws of
had not provided compensa-
ion to them, and the Court, in its decision,
,rd counsel in their argument, invited
hem to seek their remedy in that way,
md in that way justified the Act Of the
Legislature. What compensation have
We? Where shall we 90 if We are broken
lown and ruined? Who will pay us,
md thus justify this Sunbury & Erie Il.
r. Law? We have paid for this law
,ur tax for it, according to statute, was
,aid-it WAS then spread on the statute