, 1865-02-27
Gbttd96 Mribn,1e.
MONDAY. FEBRUARY q. 1865,
THE WABASH RAILWAY COM
PAM.

FANks
Two Of the horse railway ORGANS In this
city have united in publishing the following
paragraph;
"Acting upon this assumption Of the law.
Among The memSeIs We T nnoeTss1d rSsse &C It. Hon.
Grant Coodnch, Hon. e. c. Larued, several o. the
mcu."
The statement, by whomsoevcr made, that
wc arc interested, directly or indirectly. in
the so-callcd "Wabaah Railway company,"I Is
simply false. On the contrary, we are better
quallacd to take an unpejudiccd view Of that
concern than either the Pot or the Journal,
Those who think that they alone arc privi-
eyed to swina1e the people Of Chicago, have
become suddenly and vastly indignant at the
doings Of the Wabash company. The ques-
tions at issue In relation to the existence Of
that company arc now purely Judicial, and
We hare no disposition, as We have no right,
to divide with the courts the task Of decid-
Ing them. Tlcse questions, we apprchcnd,
arc, ,frst, whether there Is any such Law as
tue alleged act TO incorporate the Wabash
Railway Company, that Is, whether tue Gov
crnor's veto message was sent to the
General Assembly in the mode prescribed In
the Constitution Of the State; second, wheth.
CT It is competent for the Legislature to
grant such franchises without the assent Of
the city of Chicago. If the existing horse
railway monopoly succeed in showing that
the Legislature have no right to give away the
corporate franchises of Chicago without the
assent Of the City Council, they will upset
their own n{ncty-ntne year swindlc, and that
will be something gained. It Is contcndcd by
the Wabash company that the veto of the
Governor should have been scnt to the twenty
fourth (nresent) General Assembly, on the first
day Of its session, instead Of being sent to the
pc 1sons assembled In the State House on the
3lst day Of December, 1854, which, they con-
tend, was not a meeting Of the twenty-third
Gcnc.al Assembly, although the Governor
had prorogued them TO that day. The clause
of the Constitution applicable to this case is
as follows:
ernor within ten days t6undsys e1cep'cd) after It
ehsll have hecn presented To him, the rune shall
o lay i1s manner a.n,s, q lh., BE- bag signed +
iournment. prevent It's return; In which case the
tstd b1il shall be returned on tAe hrst day of tAe
.n<st.ag e t1< G5neTd a. 4sty 4y stfeT f@s e'ra
We suppose the vital question Is whether
hA6 UA t"A~ N~AA&-@A4- @<9&AAAsA3
on the s1st day Of December, 1864. This can
only be determined by the Courts. Mean
while the sympathies Of the community will
noble actively enlisted IN behalf of the par
ties who recently perpetrated the ninety.nlne
year outrage, aud who are seeking to estab-
lish Camden and Amboy oligarchy among
us.
We presume the Wabash gentlemen do not
look for any endorsement OF their enterprise
from the Chicago TRIBUNE. We dissent en-
tlrc1y from the principle sought to be estab-
lished in their bill, as well as the ninety-nine
year bill Of the monopolists, that the Legisls-
lure can give aWay the streets of Chicago to
horse railway companies without the city's
consent. II, rs a matter Of Constitutional
law, the Legislature oan do so, we say that it
ought not to do so. IfIt shall be determined
by the Courts that the Legislature has that
right, and that the right has been duly e1er-
clsed. then 1t will hardly admit Of question
that It Is better to have two competing COM
panies than one arrogant and 1awless monop-
oily.
The Wabash Railway act will be found In
another column,