The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1868-02-07
PIrTsBURG AND CONNELLSVILLE
RAILROAD.

road Company" Wnlcn corpord'iou
also obtained charter from the State
of Maryland. The Object of this
company was understood to be the
the construction of railroad from
Pittsburg, Pa, to Cumberland, Md.
Some twenty years elapsed after the
date of its incorporation, before the
company began to show any signs of
life; but at last it built part of the
projected road, that now in operation
between Pittsburg and Connellsville.
l. failed, however, during twenty
seven years of its existence, to COM
p!ete the road to Cumberland. In
1864, the people of ofSomerset and Bed
70 d counties despairing of the abili-
ty of the Pittsburg and COnnellSville
Railroad Company, to complete their
road, and having received the most
positive assurances from New York
and other eastern capitalists, that if
the charter of this company would be
repealed and new company, which
they were about to organize, chartered,
a road, having an eastern and western
through connection, and passing
through the coal field of Somerset
AID the center of pedfOrd, would
be made in a very short time, peti-
toned the legislature for the revO-
cation of the Pittsburg and COnnells-
vile charter and the incorporation o:
the proposed new company. Accord
ingly, the Legislature revoked the
P. & c. charter and incorporated the
"Connellsville and Southern Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company" The re-
peal of the P. & C. charter was made
upon the ground that the act of 1887,
which granted said charter, provided
that "if the said company shall at any
time misuse or abuse any of the privi
leges herein granted, the Legislature
may resume all and singular the rights
and privileges hereby granted to the
said corporation" and upon the
allegation that as the said company had
been in existence twenty seven years
and had failed to fulfill the purpose OF
its creation, it had misused and abused
its corporate privileges. Since the re.
peal Of the p. & c. charter and the in
corporation Of the new company, the
whole subject has been in litigation in
the State and U. S. courts. The old
company, Notwithstanding the fact
that it had been legislated out of eXis-
tence, proceeded to tunnel the Allie
ghenies, and the Commonwealth pro-
ceeded against the company by quo
a0rrantO. This case was argued in the
Supreme Court of this State, a few days
ago, and resulted in judgment for the
defendants. Judge SharswOod deliv-
cred the opinion of the court, which
concludes as follows:
BY the 20tn section of the original
act of incorporation of April 3, 1887, it
is provided that ''if the said company
shall at any time misuse or abuse any
of the privileges herein granted, the
Legislature may resume all and singu-
lar the rights and privileges hereby
granted to the said corporation" The
questions which naturally arise upon
the construction of this provision art
tWo-l. Is the Legislature constituted
the sole and exclusive Judge of the fact
of misuse or abuse upon which their
power to revoke is conditioned? And
2. If not, what effect ought to be Civ
Ell to their act? AS to the lst question
upon the ordinary rules applieI to the
Interpretation of language, no Difficult
ty could arise.
Ifthis We're contract between man
and man it could not be pretended
that when one party reserves the pow
thereby constituted the Judge whe,h-
er the event has occurred. 1t is a con
ditiOn precedent to the exercise of the
power, and the party exercising il
must prove affirmativeIy the execution
OF the fact. ThepOWer of the LegiSla
ture in grants and contracts is not like
the power of the English Parliament.
1t is limited and restrained by the pro-
visions of the Federal and State Con-
stitutiOnS, SD that it cannot impair
contracts either made by itself or 9th
erS. 1t corresponds more properly
to the ngIish crOwn-as to which il is
certainly the established law of that
country that the King cannot derOgate
rIn his own grant, and when an eX
press power is reserved in certain e.
vent or upon certain conditions, it
must be proved affirnatively that the
event has occurred, or the condition
Deen fulfilled.
What effect, then, are we t0 give to
the act of Aug. 10, 1861? The plead
consideration, namely, whether upon
the true construction of the act of
April IL, 1856, called in the argument
the cOndoning act, all misuse or abuse
of its corporate privileges by the com,
pany before that date was pardOned
and released We have no difficulty
in saying that upon these pleadings ii
is admitted that no misuse or abuse
had taken place, which would give
any constitutional right to the Ligis-
laturp under the twentieth section OF
the original act uf incorporation, to re-