The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1870-01-01
The BaItInSro and ohio Raurost
Nuiaanae Case


The BaItIaSro and ohio RaIIros.
! Nuisance Case.
AT the opening Of the Criminal Court yes
| terday morning, Mr.. W. A. Cook ronewet
his argument upon the law OF the case ant
against the Instruction asked by the defence
| Mr.. Cook argued that the road was bount
/ 10 pursue a route through the sauarel
named, yizi Nos. $50, sos, no and 75i
This would have required a mere crossing O
streets, and would have occupied none O
them. But the railroad did not conform 4
its obligations and ran along public streets
and II was here 10 the Criminal Court at
temptlng to sustain itself by construction
Now, Judge Black had decided-as reported
in Casey's Reports-that a railroad com,
pany could take no right Of way by con
structlon.
To authorize a railroad TO use the bed Of a
public highway there must be q plain and
uumlstakable grant Of power.
Mr.. Justice Shaw decided, In the case
governing the American railroad cases-Iu.
habitants Of Springfield vs.. Connecticut
Railroad Oompany-thAt q railway could
not use the streets Of Springfield, AZ the use
OF the streets and the purposes Of a railroad
track were contrary 10 each other.
SUGGESTION or FOUL PLAY.
II is not In the power Of the city authorl.
ties to give the company the right Of way
over Delaware avenue. But corporations
possess none OF the attributes Of persons,
except life aud Avarlce, they are soulless
aud heartleas. Gold, silver and Treasury
notes are Of powerful efficiency, and II might
be that the company did not lcruple 10 use
such means TO avoid having 10 pay for
private squares BY locating thslr road on
public avenues.
Mr.. Cook then alluded with much warmth
to the effect produced upon the streets Of the
city through which II passed. This monster
corporation seized them In It's grasp, and q
blight seemed fallen there, as tie place had
been scathed by the fires OF a volcano. He
commended further that none Of Che requisites
Of the acts Of Congress 10 relation to the ad-
mission Of the road into the city had hen
compiled with. The city was required by
the law to select a route for the road from II
street to the depot. The city did nothing Of
the kind. The city surveyor approved, not
the route, but merely the grades Of the road,
and the city eonnrmed the grades, &C., on
his approval, but has never 70 this day APP
proved Of the route. The law Is plain that
the city could not delegate the right TO To-
cate the road to the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company, and this the city autho-
rifles undertook 10 do. But the location Of
the road In this manner was not In accord
Rnee with the law, and conferred no right
"hahNNNAa DNANAu khb Ilbab VI me- VI ar
gument he gave way, and
Mr.. Riddle continued the argument on the
same side. He quoted authorities 10 show
that any narrowing Of the highway Il a
nuisance. There was nothing for the Jury
In this case. The defendants admitted the
but claimed that they are there
By authority Of Congress. The defence Il
The nature OF plea In bar. The case, as Il
stands, Is for the Government. The defence
AN Justly its stoppage OF the highway only
he acts Of 1881 and 1885, with a iIeenss
rom the city Of Washington as such war
ant. Whatever warrant OF law there il re-. |
ides In these acts. Now these grants, II |
lad already been shown, were grants ID a |
)rivAte corporation in derogation of public |
light, and must hence be construed strictiy. |
vi doubts being given 70 the benefit OF the |
public and when the methods were opensd |
hat must be chosen which Ia the most for |
he benefit Of the public.
All the power must be of direct grant
'ueh thing ~ an implied grant could not |
1lt. Whatever II tries TO DO outside Of the |
DoWer conferred on II IL not done at ali. |
The court will not infer that the corporation |
las done anything which the charter ara NOT /
ave u the power 10 do. II will not Infer
hat the city granted the streets which II
ield In trust for the public 10 a railway cor.
'oration to be used for a purpose which /.
n direct conflict with the public use, n
congress gave the city power 10 transfer
hese streets IL must do so 10 direct terms.
there Is any grant OF power TO the city Il
aust be shown, aud the oRUI iS on the de-
sndants. Let them show II.
II they relied upon the act of 1881 ma
Tarrant, they had no foundation, for mai
Ct was repealed almost entirely BY the ACT
Z 1855, and 80 far as the Baltimore and
,hlo Railroad Company IL concerned Il NAV
: wen have been left out Of the volume Of
tatutes. II had been claimed that ConRT,ss
ad granted the railroad a fee tiBpls IN ia
cd. Congress had not the power to do this,
udgs Grisr had decided that Congress held
ne streets merely AZ trustee for the public.
!ald Congress- even to pay the national
eot grant % feet on one aide Of Peunsyl-
anna avenue 70 private individuals. Ifit
night come In and retake the property.
THH RErRooEssIoN QUESTION.
Jedge Fisher said Congress had granted
2 tue state OF Virginia one third Of the ter
tory conferred upon Il. .''''
Mr.. Riddle replied that they had no right IN
lake that grant, and the retrocessIon Of
lerandria was void. He was going 10 AL
fandria 10 case he had 10 present that
iattsr % the courts there.
MI MT. Riddle coutlnusSST SslpS that the
IN ~ ,ss, sss.ds.f6 fights under the Nct o.
.bnroa sl-S<fhe act OF 1885 limited them
Cd the Interior Of the city by way
Sne Intersection Of II street and Delaware
'tnue. Mr.. II. continued, examining the /,
vs. which regulated this subject. The rea- /.
n for seeking this method OF enforcing the
yht Of the public was that In attempting TO
tile In other tribunals q delay was met :
hich would keep the subject before the !,
urts for years.
The court then adjourned until Monday, =
len Mr.. Cook will recommenee bis argu- =
mt.
=