Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-08-31
NUMBER 81.

',ah u ~ou'd nave had il il had pcssess3i rna
~. There Ia no doubt, the. .fo-r of th@wiliinyu1\
at the defendant to press s guarantee III the unr. -
sonab!e and enormous -x'snt suy,..t.dA and fhe,
orD b" As little doubt Of i's l-ga right Ia n 80 II ~
Pretended guarantee Is sustained; Tor i; Is M -
ps1cs'ss ,,s wny .ns y, e,a aII IN may not =. well
a. different months ia dfsr-,lt ypsrs and c,u.-r,
| tive years entire as we'll Il part. of wears Al
Will. the pretended guarantee co6t.rs this ..i,,tt.
and unprecedented power Of -xtoriirn upon ih. -.
tT the State and th- public Arr -it vrhnu, 80, r-
lection sgnns the abuse OF ia power. Any r-ms.
f,r defect of duty by The painiif. In c-r -
thr S.ats and the public ara placed ea'lr,', Jn .
power of thu plaintiff while the psinrifr i. sr'i-
| 10 no power control. Surh bargain hs- no I-.<
validity as yosr pstloners are advised, and c-;ts,
! is not one which court of equity will eniorc-
Thirdly Because il is too ind-6uiie and un'-ris d
to be- eIpounded and enforced; or, il certain '-
plaintiff contends II IL void tnr ths unreasousbl,. 90
equal aud enormous priv-y- which it cont-rs VIII,
Is the limit of the grSn' What persona does il C.-
fer upon III. plaintiff the exclusive right 10 rrrry '-
The plaintiff contends that il i4 unlimited, b-csr.e
cOnirr- the -xclusivs right carry all prrsout VII
would pass by rail road from Richmond TO Ws.hn,-
ton, and between those cities, and sny p,,. Fl,
the distance bstw-en them who would o'h-rw'-,
travel over the rail road of the plaintiff; and. slpp
ing that adequate means should bs proviG-i -.
end Of the rail road 10 transport the ps-s-ngar.
rsd TO il, that description embraces all psrsnn-
ing from Richmond 10 Washington and from Nr.t
ingioD TO Richmond because traveller will '-syr
rdll rOdO 10 1hR6 HfhyS c0hcn between th-
points. And the plaintiff also contends that ia rgh:-
not limited by ts powers or capacity or by Al.
precise geographical definition; and therefore 10 ,y.v
el fron Richmond to Washington by any lin con,
posed in part Of rail road which has terminus
Richmond, s violation OF a monopoly of the pain.
tif
Now. If this be true 10 whole il Is in part. bersGi
the guarantee embraces in lis terms not Only ''
whole distance between Richmond and Washington
hut every part OF u; and II therefore. 10 IL. "a
Richmond TO Washington by way OF GJr!ou-s,'ir.
Orange court house, Culp-per court house, F,rls,
court house and Alexandria be violation of tha IN,
nopoly then to go TO either o ihoss points must h-
equally violation of il; for il the route by rail
by those points, be q route from Richmond 10 Wn-h-
ington, within the meaning of the monopoly "r guS-
antee. then those points upon the route must wtht
the came meaning. be points between" Rirhm"u!
and Washington and Of course TO transport pa.S-is
ger from Richmond or Washington to either at tr"--
points is violation of the plaintiff monopoly
Can anything more be necessary to expose he
enormity aud iegaity Of such claim, than 10 -faf
II Can there be found one man, not in h- Inf-r-.-
Of the plaintiff, within the limits Of the C"m,nrn
wealth. to sustain il And yet it is clear that fi.
monopoly or guarantee Of the plaintiff must co To III
whole extent just indicated. il s utterly void sut
If it does 20 TO that extent il is certainly void b.
cause Of s unequal, upjust, unreasonable extent.
ceeding the constitutional powers Of the Lsgisa'ur..
and If II does not go that extent, what are s im~
and where Ia the certainty OF which is requisite 10
its validity
Fourlhly. Because, by the very terms Of the guar.
antee the Legislature retained TO itself the e1cu.,r
right judge of the propr-ty Of any rail road and
the plaintiff. ass party 10 the compact contract
much bound by it as the state The Legislature Git
not say, mo other rail road from Richmond to Wa.r
iugion shall be constructed" and go the Suprru.
COurts both Of THE State and of tho United State
bxvs decided Nor did IL ray, or enact. the, raj
road or line Of rail roads shall bs built from Rici
mOnd which can carry passengers 10 Washington
Nor did II say, or enact that rail road but your
shall receive compensation tor carrying pas.-ng'-
from Richmond. whose ultimate or immediate d-st.-
nation may be Washington. What, then. did II
enactl Why, elmply that no succeedipg L-gi-it.t-,
should charter company 10 build q rail Tond ;''
probable .5eet Of which, would be to dm;nisr III"
lumber OF passengers travelling upon the roai o 'i'
plaintiff. OF this the Legislature uecessariiy -
be the excosve judge; and toe enactment equiv
lent TO one declaring in terms. "ths rail road IA
built which il may spp-ar 10 the Lesi-a'ur- rh- pr
oaole efect OF which will be-, 10 dimnsh" " tor IN, -
the whole meaning OF the en1ctmen'. ana !: To- be-
construed as II 60 written. The time for Judging
necessarily the time OF passing the law; ihe or.v
could Tie probable effect, that Is. the future -h,c;
ths road be judged OF, AMI Of n-ce-siy 'hst rl'-.
rnent could bo formsd only by the body hgs!I ga,
power 10 psss the law; aud il there any ;aw
10 control that pOwer, and dir-c, its ludsm-u', q
-houd OF necessity DO exercised before the ~"
enacted. And this respondent II advised that 81
spectacle would bs unprecedented lud crou-. "t
suit in chancery 10 epjoin the Legisaiur- !TuiI
opscting law until the Court OF CE1uc-ry shoui!
determine wbs, the probable effect Of the ln~ Won't
be. And equally unprecedented and imprar'ic1t'rl
'be attempt 10 induce the courts now 10 decide what
would bs the probable Ell ,ct OF law ~ tie tan
enacted. And unless this honorable cnUrf g.
perform that impossible function. the bill ." h- pi-iu
t,f must be dismissed. II may be said ths; tbs, Wee
makes the law absurd; and this respondent hi--f-,
aud replies that lis sosurdliy gives no c.alm ia ~
dcia favor. Such ~ it i-, the plaintiff took y. ~
must sbide by il. The plaintiff asked priv l","
from the Legislature, and the Legislature grsnt~d
such ss thought proper. and no court has any p'"
er to enlarge il, or make Il new one. Ga tha con
trsry, the grant, made, must be construed strictly
against the plaintiff.
lu concuson-ih's respondent protests against 'hr
c,nin Of the plaintiff volstive Of the right Of -
respondent and at v iih the best Interests oi r
public and all the principles of our government NJ
nopoIies at all times odious dangerous. aud MIN
cal TO .qaa rights and Justice and onty Tolerated
when guarded "a far IA practicable but such "i'
uopoly hat claimed by the plaintiff il ab-oh.f~1
inconsistent with the progress OF the sgs aud I.-
country; and tho evidence already taken IN tbi-
shows that il would bc extended to its utmost cApgtty
without the least regard for the peop- or IN.
msnt. AT fret tho plaatitf denied the right ri H.
Legislature to extend the Central road TO Rlrbmoni
and has sought to tyrannz5 over the government Of
the country, and obsructed the public T.- '"r
ysar by Its eItOrti0nate denands.
BY the Judgment of the courts its hrst ola:m "a
baen defeated; but that nov set up 10 this sm-nd-i
bill il not eas eI'rnvagaDt and untenatlr aud II
tanned. will lsHvs thn community AT the mercy 81
corporation which hAs shown ts utter want OF -yfa
paby with the people and the governn-O', hnd tnf
au important period of every Year travel b-'w '-"
Richmond and Washington, must be entirely 10
pended
A having fully answered, this responder. pra:-
bs hence dismissed with ts costs. And iD v-r nc,
ton OF this ser. and The matters contained III
has caused the same to be authenticated by ia oor.
porate seal.