The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-09-16

kgAAtufe cannot be repealed or m0dihed BY the orii
nance Of city corporation. What the defendants did
in disregard Of the law less offence against the
rights Of the public because the city in sort
patceps eTiminis If both had persisted In it. the
monweahs duty would have required her to see that
the rights Of her citizens were vndicatsd ag inst both
III alleged and proved, and no. denied that the
railroad has been laid down on and along pubc road,
called TIE Buffalo road, in such way that for dis
lance It cannot be, sn1 is used at alt; but the
w,ss travel thereon are oSsed 70 take aoohsr way
which TIE railroad company has opened for them Of
course ,ns within the prsneoI ssans
The answer TO this charge Is not based any ntsrpre
tstion which the charter is thought to capable
Other grounds taken one defence is at the rail
read could not be made in straight line without taking
part Of the Buffalo rosd. We only say that If :
railroad Garnet be Ads straight without violating the
law, Il mast be made crooked no. made at all
Equally baseless (ves il tract Is the other Argument
that the public has suffered Injury by this act Those
charter, not committed - their keeping. The Les
Ature has thought proper 70 guard tbs right Of the
people to the free Of their roass by enjoinng
the defendants not to impol oostru.t tnsm. THIS
injunction wrong 20 disregard, fo- the sass
off supposed public benefit The people have ted
the boon when the company tencersd tbsm, AMI toe
state yayems gotrG dsmar d. for thsm the rights
which are secars. and reserved BY her own la~s.
w. The charge tia. tbs defendants have by contract
suncndered the control Of their read 70 corpors
ton but faint, pressed in the argument We do not
consider the contract Illegal and IL opinion we're
diaersn, wouh withhold 1t uni: ali the parties could
This dsyo.ss Of the principal allegations in the bill
But Aside from these these two matters
fested BY the defenfants counsel which ought not
be pas sd without . remark
They have argued that decree could be based OBJ
srucon created oy the Of the Railroad because the
act u Incorporation provides ouly against the road be-
leg % constructed ~ not 70 impeie &c. And the bill
charges nothing else Whatever impediments
~ The ordinary and proper Of railroad attribute
70 ite construction, impedmsns coud have bean
voided ~ different construction The Lsgslature said
20 TIE cor 2crators, yon may make railroad between
certain given points, AMI when made by running
cars ana steam eneiues H. but you must 20 make il
that its sxAtenee ard use In this way win not npedt
the travelling ON any highway now laid eat The rail
road % made that loc ,moves cannot be used ON il
without impetirg travel q certain highway preyi
cusly laid out such railroad u not constrncted a.
eordipg to thsiav II IL were, the use would be proper
enough. r'f
The defeneants' counsel have made another min,
which II 10 right 10 notice. II II said that thoueh th
proceeding IL conducted in the Of the state Il,
real object ID TO redress supposed injury which IL mi
va,e most merely local in is character We ar,
uged 70 look not at the nsg but AZ the parties who Aeh,
under H. These partesthe public authorities Of ETis
and the people OF the neigh the a.
fendant 10 expend large Of noney in building the
railroad and the attempt which they making to
break M, denounced In the argument an at OF
~snton njnsice he only party before ms 1. the com.
iscrwe8ifh. We 10 NJ; even know the nance o. tie