The Democratic sentinel and Harrison County farmer. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1851-1852, 1852-05-12

road companies q dis State rnd he Boar,
OF Fubie Works. IN relation to tle parer
Of the former and lle du,ics nj .he latter
has given bril- 70 the laN which VIC inser
to-day. and which We tLirk olc OF the mos
lmporEPnt as wei ss one Of Tic most valua
De eeS, "a The pcupk os Die Stale. tina
cUuld liave eRssss+i the uttcnt'o on or receive,
The sanct on of ttirir Representatives.
IL may be VIC so aliude bo- the oririn @
this ecniruNor>y. Hnd suecinc;ly trace /:
since y ias. Tcstil'td in solemn Legislative,
act, which, is tie lew Of the land. and mus
be obeyed
10 'Ee b ginning OF the session Of III,
tIenerHl Assembly. some Of the officers y
railroad companies held conferences with The
Board Of public works in relation TO som,
= 3oiHlielr e9ltcnp np&tederossings VI III canals
aud IN connection with the crossing at Seve
raj points. it Vas the desire oi The railroad
cOmpanie TO change the line of the canals
10 Remove thcm entirely from their present
and original beds, and place them on new
lines.
~f AZ that lime III re were three railroad
bridges which had been erected across the
canals of this State after the canals had been
DAYTON; and but cnc OF these was the
subject matter Of journal entry in the of.
ice OF the Board-that was the authority ia
erect Draw bridge ou sidecut at Day
ton, on such conditions MS would NOT inter
rupt naNigStion.
Both the Board and he railroad officers
who were conttrring with them at the time
alluded 10, supposed that the laws OF the
State then in force required consultation
with and The approval Of plan by the
Board, before railroad company could G
rect It's bridge. But on the subject of chan
ging The line uf the canal, the Board had
doubts about its authority, under the exist
ing laws, to make or allow OF change fo
the purpose propo ed. The laws permitted
The Board 10 make IL change for the purpos,
OF improving navigation, and also permitted
basins and such like appendagcs to be made
but there was no clear legal authority t,
permit change merely on the motion of
railroad company, and for It's convenience
year before, and while Mr. Forrer was i!
the Board, it had ma le grant to the Cen
tral Ohio RailIo al to change the line Of til,
canal, on ccitsin conditions, which wer,
never compiled with by that company, al
though some of the most important wer,
conditions precedent to the change.
This q. ecedeM' of the Board, thoupI
not complied with By the company (and tn,
order for which WAS aftcrwarl rescinded
%. Was urged as reason why the same thin
should be allowed 10 other comnanies.
'" The bridge at Cleveland, and the perma
nent bridge at Dayton, were but little if any
mere than nine feet high above top water
fue, and the draw bridge at Dayton
nuisance. These were cited by companie,
us wishing bridges, As models aud precedent:
also; but with the erection Of these brily
The present Board had nothing to do.
The Board, on examination of the law
cam to the conclusion that there was no di
rect authority given to them to permit the
"a line Of any canal to be changed and removed
from its bel; and that it was doubtful wheth.
er ~ implication such authority could be
drawn from any portion OF the canal laws
and they \ $50 saw the necessity of further
provision by law for bridging the canals, the
canal laws oa the subject having been pass
ed before any railroads were constructed
These conclusions were fiankly stated tt
railroad officers, and it was suggested that a
general l;sw he proposed on The subject
wAlc1 would grant the necessary authority
And wearc assured By the Board that the
e. President Of one Of these roads, and
who had heretofore been prominent r en-
Der Of the General Assembly promised tc
see members and have a law prepared
Thus far NJ was harmonious on this sub
ject; and each part agreed that Legislation
yr,e nncnucorp Fb,, p,o,J I,,J ,,,.,,,,-
believe it would be had through the m otto,
of the Rail Roads themselves; and the Board
wasnot "ware Of any new views on the part
OF these companies until some time in Feb
ruary, when one member Of the Board was
caIIe upon and urged to have the Board
recommend to the legislature the passage Of
u law on the subject This the Board de-
rlined to do, but assured those applying that
the members Of the Board would aid in in
- forming members Of the Legislature on the
subject OF the necessity Of further laws if
the Roads asked for legislation, Indeed
we Rre assured member Of the Senate WAS
requested by railroad President to draw
up the necessary law.
In February 81 change came o'cr the
spirit OF their Dreams and these railroad
umcers, throu5n tDe ADVICE oi some one
who believed in the inpiolabhHy Of charters
the vested right doctrine-determin not
to apply tothe. Legislature, butto assert their
sorereign pouer to do as they pleased. r. 1t is
believed that a conference Of number of
tie officers Of roads now building was had
ut this city. and it was de crmined not to 90
to the law making power, tomakc that plain
which WAS doubtful but 10 assert that al
power was given them in their ac' OF iucor-
roration--snd they would 90 ahead and O.
,erride The people officers and treat the ca
mails as they in their Judgment might think
tight, without regard 10 the wishes Of those
ciiicers, however reasonable. or the interests
Of the people, hewe,cr important, They
we've Rail. Road Kings and thry would go
akrad.
The Board OF Public Works were Motif.
Cd by some Of these officers Of Railroads,
Of tie views they cntcrtaincl Of the powers
conferred by their charters and one Of tic
Aciing Commissioners WAS notified BY the
"sorereiyaty" OF on of these companies,
that il he in.erf red with the company in its
crossing the canal, although ii contempla-
Ted filing up portion Of The canal, with