New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-11-08
THE RAILROAD MONOPOLY FORFEITED.

The public is hardly aware that the charter Of
the Camden and Amboy railroad company is legally
forfeited We do not mean simply that the
monopoly claimed can be destroyed under the
eighth section of the United States constitution,
which gives to Congress the power to establish
post Offices and post roads, and which abolishes
the monopoly in New.Jersey at blow if Congress
choose to make post railroad. But apart from
this contingency, the monopoly. clause s not con-
tanned in the charter of the company, but being
simply law passed long after the charter was
given, the Legislature have the right to abolish it
whenever they see fit, and besides and independ-
emily of this, the company can be tried before the
courts for fraudulsntly overcharging passengers,
and thus FORGETTING their charter.
This matter is fully treated of in series Of papers
by the late Horace Kinney Wallace of Philadelphia,
whose extraordinary legal requirements, notwith-
standing he died young, were the subject of the
highest professional and jurdical eulogy All
which Mr.. Wallace wrote is of the same force
now as when it was produ led; and, accordingly,
we lay its essence before our readers affirming that
the proper authorities Of New.Jersey should take
possession of the forfeited road. The monopoly
privilege is not part of the charter and hence
is no contract as that word has been defined by the
Supreme Court of the United States. The charter
was passed on the 4th Feb $780, and contains no in
hbtion against the creation of any other road But
on the contrary it says: THAT if the State
of New Jersey .hal authorize the construction
of any other railroad for the transportation of
passengers across the State, from New-York to
philadelphia" beginning and terminating within
three miles of the commencement and termination
of the road then authorized the mpost of ten cents
per passenger and fifteen per tun of merchandise,
should cease. 1t was enacted February A, 1881,
THAT il shall and may be lawful for this COM
psny to transfer thousand shares of stock
to the State; and that the State might there
upon appoint one director and that when
any other railroad or roads between New York
and Philadelphia should be authorized and con-
structed, this stock should be retransferred;
and that no railroad across the State should
be made within three miles of the Camden and
Amboy road until after the time allowed for the
completion OF TIE road, mine years.; and that
upon filing the companys assent to this act within
five days, " this act shall be deemed and taken as
part of the charter of said company The canal
and railroad companies were consolidated into one
by the act of 18th February, 1881. On the I'd OF
March, 1882, another act supplementary to the
last was passed. Its first section provides " that
:" it shall and may be lawful for the railroad aud
canal companies to transfer TO the State one
thousand shares of the joint stock; and the
second section says: THAT it shall not be
lawful at any time during the said railroad
"charter, to construct any other railroad
cor railroads in this State without the
consent Of the said companies, which shall be in
tended and used for the transportation of passen
" gers or merchandise between the cities Of New
York and Philadelphia, or to compete in bust
ness with the railroad authorized by the act to
(which this supplement is relative The third
section declares that the company shall always cause
the State to receive thirty thousand dollars year
on account of transit duties and dividends The
seventh section enacts that the assent Of q ma.
ority of stockholders shall be submitted in writing
to the Governor, and filed within forty days after
the passing of this act, this act shsl be void"
These are all the legislative provisions bearing on
the present question.
Now no law is irrepealsble or unalterable, except
where the effect of the law is to vest or transfer
property, and the effect Of the repeal would be
I" to devest or change that property 1.-THE pro.
"vision Of the Constitution" says Chief Justice
Marshall, in the case Of the Dartmouth college vs.
Woodward, "never has been understood to EN-.
brace other contracts than those which respect
property some object Of value, and confer
rights which may be asserted in q court Of JUS
L" tee" But the second section of the act OF
March 2, 1882, has none Of these conditions. No
grspts were based on it, nor subscription under