The New York herald., 1867-05-24
GOLD FARES on RAILROADS.


osGseHL UVnncotUUUeN6e w INK uchNIv.
IL a RailrssA Fare . Debt. and are Govern.
mont Nstos . Legal Tender In Payment
Thereofe-A Case In which tho New York
Central Railroad Company IL Concerned
Before the Supreme Court at Binghamton.
BrseHAnos, N. T., May q, 1851.
Tho case which occurred the 7h inst in reference
70 tho charges Of gold faro the New York Central
Railroad. has raised several nice points Of law which
are In fair way Of an ultimate decision On May
man named Hiram Lewis to the depot Of this
pany at syracuse, and asked for ticket 10 Canasota
station some twenty-five miles on He offered to pay in
the ordinary greenbacks which the agent At Syracuse
refused 70 take and demanded payment gold it's
equivalent. The passenger finally agreed to pay in
postal currency Of the value at the then premium
gold Of the fare which forty -four cents according
to the Of the Legislature fixing the charges this
road at two cents per mile. suit at law, however,
grew out Of this circumstance which has already been
decided at the Circuit Court and Court Of Appeals
or two Of the points at issue.
At this May term of the Supreme Court, Sixth Judi
cal district, held at Bnghamton, Broome county, New
York, whose sessions just been closed, the
was again argued and submitted but decision will not
be announced until July next II argued before
presiding Judge Baicom of this county, and associate
Justices Mason, Of Madison Boardman OF Tompkins
county by Judge Pratt for the railroad company and
G. B. Sedgwck, of Syracuse, for the plaintiff Each Of
the judges will write decision Independent Of any ex
preston OF opinion among themselves, and will agree
upon the final judgment in July next
The question at issue in this instance is not in repuda
ton of the act OF Congress making and postal
currency legal tender, although that question was
formally raised They claim that tho terms Of that act
'lega tender in the payment Of debt does not apply
to fares prepaid which not strictly debts If they
are beaten on this view OF the in the Supreme
Court end Court of Appeals the original question will be
taken TO the Supreme Court OF the United States.
Hiram Lewis piain1. aud The New York Central Rail-
road Company, defendant that defendant IL and was
corporation and body polite duly created and as such
doing business under by virtue OF act of the State
Legislature, entitled sAn act to authorize the conso-
daton OF certain railroad corporations passed April 2
1851 that on May 7, 1857 they were common carriers
Of passengers between syracuse and Canasota that by
the terms Of the act two cents per mile the legal
charge; that plaintiff paid ty five CENTS instead Of
fortyfOur In United States nstes and 1t ie admitted
that cents said coin Of greater value In
the market tnan 6fynve cents United States notes.
and plaintiff claims that said defendant In taking such
fare asked creaor than IL allowed by Law and
thereby forfeited to the said plaintiff the OF ATTY
ssoss 81 raosS n % passed d. March
1851 fhe defendant denies any liability shasssss IN
Il wss argued by Charles sedgwick on the psrt Of
the planu>ar claimed that the act Of Congress de-
ciares that grcenbacks shall 'bs lawful money and
iog tender In payment Of all debts public and private
within the United States except duties on imports and
interest," on certain government debts The said oct Of
Congress contendcd constItutioua and valid and
In support Of this he cited many eminent anthortes
and claimed that the notes presented By plaintiff were
tender Gin payment OF debit when given railroad
fare. within the intent and meaning Of SAID act. The
act Of incorporation provided also that they should
carry way passengers on their ronte at rate not 70
carriers were bosnd receive all persons who applied
for passage and who rendered fare The law raised
the public and n legal contemplation the case at law
the though written contract existed be- 4
d psn ON s r
per mile, and plaintiff agreed TO pay at that
rate in advance therefore. This obligation
Of tho plaintiff was debt (Sumerons authorities
here cited in subsianiiation OF this principleD "A
debt was that which one person bound 70 pay or
perform for another" Il made no difference whether
the contract upon which the money arose was executed
executory In taking ftynve cents in United States
notes from the plaintiff for twentytwo miles Of travel
the desendaata asked and received 70 oxcsod two
cents per mile The nfty-nve cents taken lawful
money, and sprecssly the IN legal contempa-
Tho defendants having asked and taken from plaintiff
greater rate OF fare than allowed by law he contended
that Judgment should bs ordered in favor Of plaintiff
Judge Pratt for the railroad, argued and claimed that
tho several acts making Treasury notes legal tender
the payment OF all debts not authorized by the
sttution, and therefore void and OF effect That
question having been settled against them by the Court
Of Appeals the point simply taken that the defend
ant might avail itself OF il IL the case should
reach the Supreme Court OF tho United States The
sss unsss ~ s d - moa no, oe
away that right The Of Congress authorizing the
issue OF Treasury notes 70 circulate as money were the
only ones that bore on this point On this point II
claimed that the subject OF private contracts
plainly Of state legislation that the state prohibited
from making anything but gold and silver coin tendor
In payment OF debts Until 1862 IL had never
suggested by any iurist commentator upon the
stituton that any such power vested in Congress
This right was only assumed in of natural emer
gency, was OF doubtful policy and was denied by able
jurists II was therefore clear that the statutes in
qrcston should be strictly construed and should
be extended beyond the strict letter thereof In the
place the payment Of fare railroad was not the
payment OF ccbt and did not within the letter OF
the statute making Treasury notss legal tender In the
payment OF debts. The payne OF fare was like the
payment for article Sold where the vendor could de-
mand gold, silver or paper in exchange therefor. The
might refuse 70 sell hrs goods for anything but
specie its equivalent The amount Of way-fare
limited but that did NOT give the character OF debt
II submitted again that the terms used in this
not such usually used in statutes in which
IL designed make any kind Of money legal ten
der all business transactions. They the terms
used national laws regulating the value OF the
different kinds Of coin and what shall be legal tender
In proof OF this q number Of instances were produced
from Brighty's Digest and the English statutes Judg-
ment, on these grounds, claimed for defendant.
The papers on both sides were then submitted. The
decision viii be rendered In July ncxL