, 1866-07-12
THE GREAT EXPRESS COMPANY
CASE.
An Important Declsion-The Railroads
are Public HIGHWAYS.
9ha Rtchrn nhHAl lYa 1.irnca 1

are Public Highways.
[From the Richmond tva.) Tiucs.J
The suit of B. F. Fickliu, President Of the
National Express and Transportation Com
pany, vs.. the Virginia Central Railroad and
Adams Express Companies, which has been
under argument in the Hastings Court for
the past week before Judge Lyons, Of this
disposed Of yesterday by the decision, which
was rendered by Judge Chambers. We make
the following synopsis: .s -.
Railroad companies are common carriers,
bound by The laws and subject to all the
obligations enforced by the law on common
and all their rights and privileges are de-
rived frum 1leir charters. Created asfor the
public benefit. their rights, powers, and priv
Ileges are necessarily great TO enable them to
fulfil the duties and render the service the
public requires Of them. Yet they are monop-
ed and taken from the rights and privileges
of the people, and In e1poundfng and
defending these rights 1t Is the dnty OF
the Court to adhere to the strict con-
struction Of their charters. Being per
petual body. taking by. succession aud
not By Inheritance, there Is a constant ten
dency to an accustomed accumulation Of
wealth and Of power which, If not restrained.
might become destructive of Individual
rights and even dangerous to public liberty.
These corporations, then, must stand on the
strict construction Of their charters, the re-
strlctlon being necessary for the preservation
OF public aud private rights. II they exceed
holders or Of private individuals, they are
liable to be enjofned without regard to the
amount Of damage. Damage or no damage,
they must contlne themselves wi hin the
limits Of their: charter rights. II they fail to
do SO, the Legislature may declare their char
ters forfeited, or they might be deprived Of
against 1t at law by the commonwealth on
writ~fof quo teaTynnlo. Every stockhoider,
then, Is interested IN compelling the company
to act within Its charter limits Ia the exer-
else of It's powers.
its chartered powers By the contract with
the Adams Express Companys To their
privileges Us common carriers there are cor
responding OBLIGATIONS. They hare the priv
tlcge OF carrying passengers and freight; but
they must carry Them on terms OF perfect
equn1lty in the order in which they are pre-
kented, and at the same rate Of fare or
freight. Do they do this? The question Is
answered By the contract.
But It is said In the answer that this con-
tract only applies to express frefshts, and
that those axe light articles. The law makes
no such distinction, but expressly includes all
express matter and ireights, aud If the com-
ps4lt LIES 4 l!SAL u u1NhE LIE EQAt1ANl III W
their express trims, 1t Is not seen why the
company could not extend the same con-
tIacts to their freight trains, and to exclude
from It's privileges all but men who would
adynuce $50, 900, ns the Adams Express have
done under the coutrrct In this case.
There Is another reasou why the contract Is
illegal. It requires the Adams Express Com-
pany, and all other persons who may do an
express business, to pay the highest price al.
lowed by law for the transportation oi
freight, and also to make an adYauce of $780,.
600, to be accounted for In the settlement fol
freight and express matter transported during
the yeaE, but without interest tor the tIuie
during which this sum Of money mBy be in
the hands Of the company. This Ia Illegal,
bccause It is cxacting more than the law a1'
lows for transportation 1t ia exactfng the
maximum price for transportation and also
the use Of loan OF q laEge amount Of money
without paying interest therefor. !: Is also
q contract to refuse to transport matter
or freight tor any company or per
son, unless such company or person will nd
vance so, GOO as loan to the railroad com
pany without Interest, or q prepayment o
freight to that amount when the company
n,sy not do business to TINT amount during
the year. 1t Is virtually placing the express
business at the control OF persons or compa
nies who may be able to advance or IoaI
~, Geo to tho railroad company. Therefore
tho railroad company had transcended tht
powers conferred upon 1t by the law, aut
ought to be required to observe the rules pre-
| scrihcd by the Legislature
The counsel for the defendant then made O
! motion to suspend tho judgment, which, utter
some discussion, was QYcrrulel.