Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1865-09-21

pressure stronger still, and the State au-
thorities, after considering the subject
carefully, concluded to sell the main line to
the Penn'a r. r. Co. for seven and half
millions, the minimum valuation, provided,
the Company would pay one and half
millions of dollars more to get rid of the
Tonnage Tax After much quarreling
among themselves, the offer was finally ac-
cepted, and the contract was accordingly
ratified between the Governor, who was by
the law authorized to act on bciltli of the
State, and the Penn'a r. r. Company.
The Canal Commissioners, however, who
did not like to give up the places to which
they had been elected, and the emonsncuIs
arising therefrom, sued in the Supreme
Court Of the State, for an injunction to him
der the consummation of this contract be-
tween the State and the r. Co. alleging
that it was unconstitutional. The Court
decided very properly, that portion Of the
contract which bargained away the right of
the State to tax in future the tonnage, or
any other property of this r. R. Company,
was illegal, and, accordingly it ordered an
injunction on this part of the agreement.
The act authorizing the sale of the main
line to the Penn'a r. r. Co. passed in 1857.
The injunction Of the Supreme Court was
ordered in the January Term of 1858; and
in 1861 the bill came before the legislature
requiring the Penn'a r. r. Co. to pay nine
millions of dollars for the main line of the
State works, repeating the Tonnage Tax,
and saying nothing about the future tax
alton of any railroad. This was in all re-
spects simple confirmation of the old bar
the same, but the tax was repealed and
not sold, and this was to meet the objection
Of the Court, it having declared that the
State had a perfect right to sell her public
improvements, and to repeal the Tonnage
Tax. This was the DILL for which Mr. Ian
DON voted, and about which such hue
and cry has been raised. The amount
of his offending, was simply, that he voted
to fulfill q bargain the State had fairly
made with the Penn'a r. R. Co. in 1851.
The State had bargained away the Tonnage
Tax long before LANDoN was elected to the
Legislature, and if there was any wrong in
this, it was committed by the Legislature of
1851, and not by that of 1861 The State
could not honorably withdraw from the con-
tract she made i'll 1851 if she had been so
disposed, and the people did not wish her
do 50, for they wanted the public improve
ments sold, and there was no other bidder
for them. SO what could Mr.. LANDoN do
but vote for the bill? If A sells B a farm,
and there is flaw in the stipulated con-
tract, does that release either of the parties
from the agreement? No honest, or hon
orable man holds such a view
But further. Between the time of the
sale of the main line of the State
improvements, to the Penn'a R. r. Co. in
1857, and the passage Of the bill for which
Mr.. LANDoN voted in 1861, the Penn'a r. R.
Company had paid no Tonnage Tax into
the State Treasury, claiming very properly,
that this tax ceased at the time of
its purchase Of the canal To this the Ca
nal Commissioners demurred and they
sued the company, obtaining Judgment
we believe through default-for the whole
amount of the accruing Tonnage Tax. The
question now arises should the company
have paid this tax ? The Company has rat
flied her part of the contract by paying
into the State Treasury the purchase mon
ey, and her bonds for the residue on which
she was paying interest. By her contract
the company gives one and a half million
Of dollars more for the canal she buys than
its owner calued 1t at, for the sake of being
relieved of the Tonnage Tax, and she
agrees to pay interest annually on her whole
Indebtedness but owing to flaw in the
bargain, the property she buys is withheld
from her, so she loses the revenue from it.
Then she is sued for the Tonnage Tax be-
sides. Here the State sells her works ex-
acts pay and bonds-and interest on the
latter-then for three or more years collects
the revenue from the property sold, and
strives besides to collect Tonnage Tax
she had bartered away thus taking pay
three times oUer for property which she had
parted with, and which therefore, could not
belong to her Is this fair? What Com
pany, or individual would submit to it ?
Yet Mr.. LANDoN is censured for not insist
ing upon such an outrage
Take as further illustration, the case of
A and B already cited A has sold his
farm to B, but defect is found in the con.
tract, difficulties are thrown in the way of
the consummation of the bargain, and time
elapses. Meantime B holds A's bonds and
the purchase money, and the farm into the
bargain. He uses the purchase money, ex-
acts interest on the bonds, and collects the
income from the farm. Is all this right ?
Has B all the rights, and A none ? Could |
b sustain such swindling operations before
the court of justice None but a fool or
a knave will pretend it; and none other
will insist that the state should perpetrate |
such wrongs on even rail road company, |