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

The act Of 1882 il no bargain, be 1t said for the
honor of the legislature Of New-Jersey and the
country The benefit of the second section Is not
granted in consideration of the profits to be de-
rived from the first The company is not required
TO grant the shares but BY the first section, 1t
q" shall and may be lawful for them to do so ana
Of this the second section is independent And
moreover. in the act of 1881 it is provided that
upon the compsny's assent being shown, this act
shall be deemed and taken asporf o. ne Charter
of said company But the act Of March = 1884,
simply provides that unless the company assent
be given in certain time this act shall be void
So unlike that of 1881 it was not made part OF the
charter. That the act of 1882 is not part OF the
charter can be proved By express decisions oil 'ne
courts That the legislature has right to incorpo-
rate another rail- cad or canal company immeda'ey
after it has incorporated first has been forever
settled by the decision of the Supreme Court oitne
United States, in Charles River bridge r. warren
bridge. ct al, ii Peters 20: In charters OF THIS
description, said Chief Justice TAney, in deliver
ing the opinion of the court, no rights are taken
from the public and given to the corporation
b" beyond those which the words OF the
% charter. by their natural and proper con-
struction, purport to convey. 1here are
"no words which import such contract
&" and none can be implied. The whole community
q" are interested in this inquiry, and they have
right to require that the power OF promoting
[" their comfort and convenience, and OF advancing
the public prosperity, by providing safe, con-
veniept ard cheap ways for the transportation
" Of produce and the purpose of travel, shall not
" be construed to have been surrendered or dimin'
" ished by the State; unless it shall appear by
plain words that it was intended TO be done
The Virginia court of Appeals affirmed the same
principle in the case of the TuckahOe Canal
esmpany va. the Tuckahoe Railroad company
II was then decided that the Legislature
after incorporating a canal company might imme'
diately incorporate railroad company alongside
of it. President Tucker in delivering Judgment
said: at can never be conceded that the lncor
"poration Of one company for internal improve
" ment ia an implied negative of all future power
in the legislature to incorporate other companies
d. for other improvements. If these pretensions
.. are listeued to. there will soon be an end Of the
" necessary improvement Of the country. But
..thev are without foundation. Monopoly is not a
matter of inference. 1t must rest spretenslons
upon express grant. 1t is restriction upon
ICON mon right, upon legislative power, and can
not be implied" Besides, it has been decided
that clause in an act such as that Of the second
section of the New jersey act of 1882, does not
nrobbit the Legisa ure from inc operating another
connecting company at a subsequent time. So set
tied in New.York, in the case of the Mohawk
Bridge Co. V. the Utica and Schenectady k. K Co.
And so of other decisions: consequently there Is
no denial of this point.
The next point is-that the cOmpanys charter
ia actually forfeited by their charging four dollars
when they were by law limited to three. The great
authorities are clear on this head. All franchises
I" are granted" said Lord Holt, on condition that
they shal be duly executed according to the grant
"and if they neglect to perform the terms the
"Iatent may be repealed by scre taeias.' So, too
Baron Comyp, Mr.. Justice Story and others. In the
case of the Peoplev. Hillsdale and Chatham Turn
pike company, before the Supreme court of this
State, it was adjudged that a neglect OF such a
company to keep the road faced with gravel or
broken stone of nine inches in depth, in such
manner as to secure a firm and even sarface,
"rising in the middle by gradual arch,
as the act of incorporation required, is
ga forfeiture" So, too, in cOgnate cases. Now
there is an emJarras de richesse in selecting from
among the iniquities Of the Camden and Amboy
railroad company; but this could be obviated by
singing out the particular swindle in question.
The LEGISLATURE did it's duty in limiting the rates
for passengers So it is for the attorney general
of New.Jersey to institute proceedings against the
COMPANY for abuse of franchise. They can be
tried and convicted before the ordinary courts of
Justice in the State, if jures and judge and attOI
ney general do their duty.
There is one other point to be considered a
chartered monopoly being legal franchise is pri-
syate property" and as such is liable to be taken
for public uses as all other private property msy
be. reasonable compensation being made to the
owners This supreme prerogatiye of the State is
know as the right Of eminent domain. The Su-
preme Court of the United States in the case OF
the West River Bridge company Y. Dix and
Others so decided. Thus the monopoly has no lie.
cal existence if the State choose to take it under
the right of eminent domain. On this there can
be no adverse argument.
Now the question is with these Judicial and
legislative modes of wpDg i. out, shall that infa-
nous company be permitted to lord it over the
most frequented highway on the face Of the globe
We second the stump nomination of John Van