Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1857-09-05
The Charge of Illegal Fees in the
Main l. Inc Injunction Case.

Main L inc Injunction case.
We will state a few points in reply to
the perversons of the papers, 10 relation to
the charge of illegal payment to Counsel in
the Main Line case. rry<-rFrvv
/. What has been paid Counsel has been
exclusively in the case of the Canal Com
missioners, Us the Pennsylvania Railroad,
and not dollar in the individual cases Of
Col. MORT.
2. The money acas appropriated by the
Legislature, in section 10, Appropriation
Act Of May 1s, 1857, "for miscellaneous
expenses" The money has not therefore,
been paid "without appropriation Of Aw."
8. The Supreme Court did decide that
the Canal Commissioners were acting in
the line of their duty, an instituting Judicial
proceedings to prevent the sale upon The
terms in the act of May l6, 1857, and did
sustain their bill in equity by granting an
injunction to prevent sale which should
discharge the p, nnsylvania Railroad Com
pany from the payment of taxes. The
course adopted by the Commissioners, was
therefore, legal as we'll as laudable, and
the employment of Counsel, which was
absolutely necessary to carry on the suit,
was an official act for the benefit of the
State, and just ground for the payment
of actual and reasonable expenses thereby
incurred. In short, the Court has substan-
TALLY decided that the Commissioners were
right in.employipg Counsel and carry ing on
the case in behalf of the State, to protect
the public rights and the interests of the
taxpayers.
8. The Attorney General was not EN-.
ployed, for the very good reason that he
aoas employed on the other Sitle, against
what the Court have decided was the right
of case. How much has been paid, if
anything, for contending that the Legisla-
ture can sell out the tax power 10 favor OF
a powerful, corporation, and throw the whole
Of the public burdens, eventually upon q
part of the people, is. not a material ques-
ton, but We may recommend it as appro.
pirate for Republican research. Where
popular rights are about to be sacrificed, as
was the case in this very instance, it would
be very convenient doctrine for those
concerned in tie outrage to employ the
Attorney General on their side, and then
insist that no one but him could represent
the other side!
a. No inordinate sum was paid Counsel.
We are informed on good authority, that
the Pennsylvania Railroad Company paid
their Counsel IN these very main line cases,
$4,000 each for their services. &c.,.
5. In former case in the Supreme
Court between .the Canal Commissioners
and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company,
about the use of the Columbia Railroad, the
Board employed Counsel and they were
paid by the State. No one found fault
then or since, as the act was legal, neces.
sary and right. This was about 1852, and
the case is reported in 9th Harris reports
The State islnot SO utterly powerless that
her public officers cannot defend her by
employing Counsel in cases of strict neces
sity, even against an Attorney General
who gets somehow on the wrong side; !; and
that has been rightly done in this case, and
the course adopted roundly sanctioned by
the highest Court under the Constitution.