The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1853-11-16
LOCAL MATTERS.

asiss - fsssft =
The ISJUscTIos CAST That there ma,
beno further misunderstanding as TO- what is Judg
MEh EDITH's opinian on this highly important ques
ton. we lay ii before our resders this morning il
fun. 4s5ss .ss.s assesss q e .ss )
The Richmond. fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad
I Company, PitFs.,
- Against ~as.s9 s-Fs In Chance r
The Virginia Central Railroad Company, Dcfts.
|, The compainants fled their bill in this cause set
ting forth that rhe extension of the ad Of the de
fendants from the Junction 70 or near the dock II
freight and passen gels on the same, is Inconsistent
with the previous grant to the on1pfainats and i'm
pairs the obligation the contract made BY the Leg
.thei franchise can1sf be taxed frouis the complain
ants for the of the respondents and that they
hAye therefore right build their road across the
road Of the complainaufs and that the road Of the
respondents from the Junction to the city of Rich.
mond has been completed and Is daily used for the
therefore, arsi that the respondents may Be enjoins
from crossin the road of the complainants on tile
sen gers between the JUNCTION and the cits ef Rich.
no&d and third that the respondents render an &C.
count of the receipts by the for freight and travel
would have accrued TO the complainants but for the
4 use of the respondents road "a. - - ( s
The respondents in their answer, deny that the act
construct road from the junction to or uex the
dock in the city of Richmond any manner violates
act Of f tsss s y
denial of any nfraction of the rights of the COM
plainants yet the admissions of the answer and the
proofs in the cause show that the respondents have
transported aud still transporting freight and pas
sengers their road from the Junction to the city
OF Richmond, and that it is their intention on the
ter into an arrangement with that coHpany,by which
passengers can be carried through from the city of
| Richmond to the city of Washington. II becomes
necessary under these circumstances that the
should enquire and ascertain to what extent if any,
the respondents haye invaded the PRIVILEGES guara,
feed to the complainants by their act of incOrpora-
tion What relief If any, can be afforded for such
violation of the rights and privileges of the com
plainants, and how far the court should exercise its
powers to restrain the respondents from
Infringing further on those rights! - 49,
Before entering upon this enquiry it is proper to
parties the Supreme Court of the United States re-
cognzed the well settled principle that the grant of
franchise is of no higher order and confeEs
sacred title, than grant of land to individual and
when the public necessities require it the one as well
| as the o.her may be taken for public purposes on
making suitable compensation Nor does such an ex-
ercise of the rights of eminent domain interfere with
an involabhty of contracts and applying this prin-
cple to the then contract betweenthese PARTIES the
court held that the respondents had the right under
their chartet to construct their road from the juno
ton to the city of Richmond and cross the road of
the complalnants on the level thereof aud that the
was not violation of the rights guaranteed to the
l complainants by their act of incorporation These
questions having been adjudcated in former suit
between the parties by court of competent appel
late Jurisdiction, am bound to obey that decision
and in good faith to carry it out anysubsequent
troyersy that may arise between the same parties
touching the same subject matter whAtevst ofnions
I1iight entertain if they come originally before
me. The remaining question presented by the plead.
Iings and proofs in this and the only one which
can consider s the right Of the defendants to trans
port passengers on their road. right, which de-
pepds upon the interpretation to be given the 38th
section of the act OF incorporation of the company
complainant, containing the pledge contract made
by the State with them, which their bill charges to
4 have haen md hv thec cborta oF+h,
Respondents. t =. ~ irsq ~ = - te55t,
The Sssh section andits preamble are as follows,
SAnd whereas the railroad authorized by this act
will farm part of the main Northern and Southern
route between the city of Richmond and the CITY of
Washington and the privilege of transporting pas
gers the and receiving the passage money
wil it is believed, be s:rong indueement to indi-
vduaIs to subscribe for stock III the company End
the General Assembly considers it just and reasona-
| BILE that those who embark in the enterprise should
not be deprived of that which forms chief induce
| ment to the undertaking. - -
SO. "Be it therefore enacted and declared and the
| General Assembly pledges itself to the said Com
pany, that in the event of the completion of the
of Fredericksburg, within the time limited BY this
act the General Assembly will not, for the period
of thirty years from the completion of said railroad
allow any other railroad TO be constructed between
| the city Of Richmond and the city of Washn atop
the probable effect of which would be to diminish
| the number of passengers travelling between the
one city andthe other upon the railroad authorized
by this act or to compel the Company, in order to
retain such passengers to reduce the passage eney.
4 PROVIDED however, tuhL DOinlhgt nereIn contained
shall be SO construed as to prevent the Legislature at
any time hereafter from authorizing the construc.
tion of railroad between the city of Richmond and
the towns of TappahaaHoek or UFbanHa, or to- any
intermediate points between the said city and the
said towns; and provided ALSO that nothing herein
contained shall be construed to prevent the Genersi
Assembly from chartering any other company or con
panies construct railroad from Fredericksbura to
| the cityof Washington
shall consider how iaf the rightclahied and mo-
enjoyed by ytherespondents OF Transporting passen-
gers their road, is violation Of the privilege
guaranteed the comp ainants in the 38th section of
of travel that pass over their. road; iand r -
First. OF the Through travel, " or that which
/ passes between the city of Richmond and the CITY
of Washington, 1t cannot be denied that the grarar-
tee contahed in the E8th section of their Charter
secures to the c0mpianants the transport all
travellers passing along the line road through
Fits whole extent. In truth the counsel for the re-
/ spondenfs their argument support of the claim
of their clients tocarry tie way sfraveP tfTon Ie
Junction to the city of Richmond conceded thai the
privilege guaranteed to the compaiuants by their
charter applied to the through travel and insisted
that itapped to that trayel'oalyi Batthe violatoh
of their privilege in respect this description OF
1 travel, which theeonpleinants apprehtnd and which
they ask the Court TO avert by te exercise of its
preventive power, is tRst apoh the eohapietibn oi
the Orange and Alexandria road to GoIdonsviIle 4
connection will then be formed with the road of the
respondents by which, continuous fine railrpad
bewetl those two ties will be furnished fo4 the
travelling pubic, the probable effectof which would
be to diminish the Bumber of passengers travelling
between the one city ana the other, upon the rail-
ants in order retain sachpassengers TO reduce the
i passage money. 5a 80 itIi i4a II .fy4 - 81
1t will be observed that the Orange and Alexandria
road is not yet completed and actual injury in
this spect has been sustained by ID colplaiDats
but is merely apprehended Nor does it appear tist
i that road when peted, will allow It's ctaneion
lygith the road of che respondents TO be usedf vo
lation OF the chartered privileges of the cornplaa-
ants and though the respondents may entertain the
design Of using this connexion with the Orange and
Alexandria road, in manner to impair the sgtaraf
tsed rights Of the complanants, YET withou the as
sent of the Orange and Alexandria road unite in
i this design il cannot be accomplished and inu4y
can sustained by the compiainants and it does not
Iappear that iha Orange and Alexandria road have
assented to any such design, entertain any pur-
4 pose of doing So lnIth viesS then, the apprehend
ed injury which theconplanants charge, is not well
founded and furnshesgo grouna for the nterfeEenee
of this Court, by way OF injuncton; fer the Court
should not interfere tepreyent remote uncertain
/ If it were shown that the Orange and .Alexandria
road had entered into this arrangement, it does mol
follow, do the proofs show. thatthe conbnatier
would resutin injury 70 the eonplainants, and thai
the two roads thus united. would furnish railroad
'fhe probable effect of hieh wouid be to diminish
the number af passen serstravslius between the one
city and the other, the railroad OF the complain
axis" If this Court gterposes at all il can only dc
undersianding1y when shall clearly appear that
1 the twefoaAs have entered into an-arfangement &c
present a,conspeting line of and the praetcal
/ the result distinctly shown by the proofs. BECAUSE
il having been decided by two Courts Of competent
Jurisdiction that the construction of the fespondenP
rpad is eeal aud proper all fnrnfe enquiries are con
fined the use that may be made OF IL should
be used to encrOach t1e,oh9reT priyiie