Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1869-02-10
bod Examination 8 Rutland \. r. Illumination.

The Bennington & Rutland u. u. Injunction.
\ few days ago we copied from the Bur
lngton Free Press 0nd TINES reported de-
cision q Judge Nelson, enjoinng the Bcnning-
ton a Rutland Railroad from carrying into effect
the act Of our last legislature permitting the said
rond to run on the track Of the Rutland 4 Wash
ing;on Railroad to the West Rutland marble quar-
rics Just what TINT decision was, will appear
By the following letter from one Of the counsel In
the case
Editors Of pJmoaf Hai,iH,ap
Gentlemen notice in your paper an article
purporting 10 give statement Of decision by
Judge Nelson, ON an application for an injunction
by the Rensselaer, q Saratoga r. X. Co. rs. the
Bennington Rutland II II Co. This is not a
matter Of very general public interest, but il any
public statement Of It Is worth making, know
YOU would prefer b. state the truth. The act OF
| the Vermont Legislature of last iall authorizing
tho Bennington Rutland r. Il. Go. to run up
/ 10 the marble quarrics at West Rutland ON tho
/ track of the Rutland a Washington road, re-
quircd the managers Of the Rutland q Washing
| ton road within thirty days after the passage 81
the act to establish rules and regulations ~ gov
ern their raining and in case they refused o,
make any, or made such as were regarded uurca'
sOnahle, then the BonningtOn& Rutland Co. wer,
authorized 10 apply to the Supreme Court for TIA,
appointment OF Commissioners ~ establish sucl
regulations. The Rensselaer, & Samtou r. Il
/ Co, which is in possession OF the Rutland a
/ Washington road, omitted during the thirty day
/ TO make any regulations, and brought their bill
against the Rutland a Bennington Co.. praying
/ for a temporary injunction t0 restrain them from
making any application to the Court 90 get rcgu
atiOns established, and also o. restrain them from
running upon the Rutland a Washington track
and that on final hearing such Injunction SHOULD
! lao made pprTDfuul The Ylurf4r Dl tbg lfufluuf
4 Washington Co. has clause, rescrying 10 III,
legislature the right 10 allow any other milrua,
to use any part OF their road under such regula
tons as that company should prescribe The ar
gument was, that the legislature had cxcecdct
their power under this reservation, because the
had provided q way 10 enforce it through th
Court, if the Rutland q Washington Co. SHOULD
refuse TO make regulations, or should make suc
as were unreasonable.
The answer was apparent that If the Rutlon
& Washington Co., by refusing 10 make any reg
ulntiuns, or by making such MS could not be 90
served could prevent any other road from runnn
upon theirs, it made the reservation mere NULL
ty that the power 10 enforce il was necessarl
implied in the reservation itself Judge Ne-o
81 refused 10 grant any injunction 10 rcstun On
defendant from applying 10 the Court 10 estal
fish regulations, but said that as he thought
was questionable whether the act of last fall di
not 90 further than the reservation in the charte
{ warranted, he would enjoin the defendants irou
running on the track Of the Rutland Il Washing
ton road until the hearing The act Of last lu
E does not authorize the Bennington q Rutland roa
to enter upon the other road until the regulation
are established How much judicial ws,lor
there is in the doubt expressed by Judge Nesl
as to the validity Of the act of last fall every ma
: can Judge for himself II sound, then the reser
G walton in the charter of the Rutland & Washing
I ton Co. amounts to this,-that the legislator
may authorize another road to run over thei
tracks if they choose to let it, and not otherwise
l.. p. POLAND.
n Wnshinpton Feb D. 1869