Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1857-06-24

Mr. Hirst proceeded to read the Act of
Assembly in its various provisions in relation
to the saleof the Main Line, maintaining
that the Legislature might as we'll have con-
ferred the power of selling the road upon a
mere auctioneer as the Governor, and that
the provision the act coniscating the stock
of stockholder. by reason of his dissent, was
unconstitutional; that the Company had the
corporate right under their charter to coerce
a minority; their charter aud the stock of the
stockholders we're inviolable; that the limita
tons in the charter denies to the Company
tie right to embark in this enterprise.
These propositions were supported by q
number of authorities OF The Federal and State
Courts.
Mr.. Campbe! followed in behalf of the de-
fendants. The FIRST question for considera-
ton was-Will the Court grant a special in
Junction to prohibit obedience to an act of
Assembly upon the application of such par
ties, or upon such a case as is made by either
bill In regard to the right of the respec-
tive parties asking the Intervention of the
Court. he said that the Canal Commissioners
as such, are not entitled to relief, having no
property or interest in the works to be sold,
but are only the superintendants to guard the
property of the Commonwealth and to obey
her commands. They can have no relief as
taxpayers. for they do not aver that their
taxes will be augmented by the sale. The
stockholder is not entitled to special I'M juno
ton, because the acts complained of are not
in violation of but n obedience to the law /;
because he has intruded himself iEso the cor
poration for the purpose of creating litigation
and preventing the acceptance of the law
He can suffer no such irj Jury as entities him
TO the summary relief songht-his interest is
insignificant aud indemnity is rendered him.
The bills presented purport to be for the pur
pose of preventing the sale, but are really to
restrain competition. No person, by purcha-
sing stock, pending the grant of powers to a
quasi public corporation can be entitled to a
special injunction prohibiting the use of such
extended authority, and deprive the people
of advantages designed to be secured by
such legislation
Mr.. &. said the complaiDants maintain that
there can be no substantial change in, or ex-
tension of power granted to railroad COM
pany without the unanimous consent of every
stockhcldcr The defendants are great COM
pauies, created to maintain and promote the
policy of the State, to extend her trade and
to form improved highways for the transpor-
tation of passengers mails and traffic, upon
which every citizen is entitled to place ve-
| hicle to be transported, are not to fall within
the same narrow rules of law maintain
will. reference to corporations in their nature
exclusively private, and maintained solely for
individual profit,
That these great companies are to bo re-
garded as quasi public corporations, with
powers conferred for the public good, and in
to which every shareholder who enters does
so with the full knowledge that their powers
and privileges may be, from time to time, ex-
tended as the public necessities may require
That with reference to corr orations of this
class. upon whom is east the discharge of pub
lie duties as well as the protection of private
interests, the action Of a majority of the stock
holders in acc cspting an additional privilege
conferred by the Legislature, viii bind the
corporation, not to the extent of compelling
a dissentient shareholder to enter into the ad-
venture sanctioned by law; but to allow him
The option either to have his interests control
led by the majority of his associates. or to
withdraw from the corporation. aud his pc
cuniary interest ascertained, paid or secured.
That any other rule would enable a single
shareholder OF the rival works of other States
TO prevent the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
MIA from using, for purposes which were con
sistent with her policy and her interests. cor
porations were created by her and would rem
der unavailable the associated capital of the
State to accomplish any beneficial object she
| might have in Interview.
The Common nwealth has before parted with
her property-for instance the Erie Railroad.
the Franklin Canal, and she offered to give
away the North Branch Canal, but no one
| would have it. The people. those who make
the machines hum, and the fields bloom wish
Al olo 10 90
possible.
The case is being conducted on the part OF
| the complainants by Wm. L. Hirst, G. r.
Buckalew, James II Walton and VIM. NJ
Meredith: on the part of respondents by st.
! George I Campbell. + NJ Stanton, Attor-
ney General Franklin, and Theodore Cuylcr.
Mr.. Stanton will speak this morning.
The following is the answer and protest oi
Gov. Pollock to the BILL together with his
brief as one of the parties named in it =
| James Pollock, Governor of Pennsylvania
| protesting against the jurisdiction of this
court in the premises, and against the right
of the complainants to be heard therein con.
cerning any of the matters and things in THEN
said bill of complaint set forth, and reservine
to himself all manner of exception thereto
makes the following statement and protest =
That the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
is the owner of the public improvements and
property described in the bill OF complaint
and known as the Main Line of the public
works that the complainants are the Cana
Commissioners of this Commonwealth: thai
they have not vested in them any portion o
the supreme executive power thereof, but are
ministerial agents, having certain limited
powers specially delegated to them by acts o
Assembly, and entirely subject to the direc.
ton and control of the Legislature: that SC
far from being, by virtue of their said office
-. - .o.raae:os, af H. Mir / inn af &he