, 1870-04-11

IL AS kHG Ra19jAk0 IL |
,nly where, in their cha.teEa specaa provsHoan
ire made or special powers granted. LOT tnesa
Arc sacred to them, and MAJ not b touched ~
he Legislature.
Ia there any special provision in the ehartsr
Of this defendant providing where It uaJ d.
liver its goods, or that it need nos doltver them
to the consisnee? Undoubtedly not, but TINT h
h.s been left to the courts to Determine or the
Legislature to prescribe.
And / have endeavored to ahow that tho
Legislature hss prescribed precisely What ne
courts would determine in the absence Of the
special law. But probably the courts Eouid
not say that indirlduala might connect taei5
~ to cnable them to receive consignments at
ias Il ths s'tsh9ssfS ehs9tex o, hi. 1eee
tibitmg the Iegiai.turo to require them
70 suffer this to be done? y there
il, then ! gran. this could not lawfully be done
by the Legislature, and it is the duty Of this
court to inte1pose all its power md prsvent
this erc1oachnant upon their vested right, no
matter how much the pulIic good may be sup
posed to require it. But l find no Euch pEoEl-
any. Il there be none. then the Legislature
may require that it shall be done, when, in its
Judgment, the public good demands it Who
ever doubted that the Legislature might pre-
ectabe any rules deemed needful for tha mode
81 conducting the snsinsss eSmpa9p e.tet
in covered wagons, or that one carrier should
take goods from Another and forward them in
case OF accident, and, indeed, anything elsa
deemed reasonable and Just which public con-:
yenience might require. There can b. NO
to require that p1ivate parsons might construct
those hide tracks with thcxo railroads., But. ia
this cave, We are not eren required to de-
fend this most just and reasonable provision
Of this law, for we have ride track connected
~ 1tr,n nF hi
ton raised Al to the mode OF manner Of put
ting il there. There is no question but that it
is there lawfully.
I may here LIE permitted to express ny deep
regret at this attempt on the part Of oae rail-
road, at least, to set ut defiance this most reac
sonablo provision Of the law, md thas 70 set
itself up a4 the a1biter al individuals and their
fortunes Hers Is bold attempt, directly in
the face Of the law, to favor one un1n At the
expense Of anothet-to build up the fortunes
OF one while it ruins another. It il an attempt,
in violation Of at law and right, to control The
storage as well ~ the earring business, and
that, too, not only to the injury Of II except
few warehouse men, but especially ia it
injurious to tho producers who hare to
send their produce to market over this road
It practically prevents all competition in tue
warehouse business, and throws Ill the far
meru along the line Of this road into the hands
Of one man or firm; who, having no rivalry in
the business, may and will do the bnAincsa rs
they please, md charge whAt they please. Its
tendency il actually to enhance tho cost OF
every loaf OF bread that il baked, and ut The
/ same ti1e to diminish the price Of every
this road ] sxy exceedingly regret to see
| this, for We know, let these railroad comps
MES do the yery best they can, and set With Ill
Justice and impartiaiityI possible, and the pub
| lie is prone to complain and find fault with
them that unjust and unreasonable preiu'
l fArxf1T aff $n3 md Hrr1
| aged against them, from the effects Of which
tho courts arc constantly called upon to inter
ppee and protect them, and Am proud to sxy
it has never s.lrluk from the responsibility ol
/ doing so+
How lAmentahle is it, then. to SEQ company
putting itself 80 palpably in the wrong, tanning
| the flames OF prejudice against ITSELF and iti
Of the court ~ well a. Of a iight-ihinking CON
munitr. Should such course bo long pu1
sued BY al the rnilIoada of the State, it voult
/ soon produce state Of things much to be Ia
meuted, and By none morn than By this Court
In justice to the President Of this road
feel warranted in saying. from my, persona
knowledge of him, thst thia course WIS Origin
ally taken By his subordinate without his difec
ton
After tho learned counsel had argued til
case With so much zeal and ability that, a
appears to me, they convinced thenselve
goods to tho consignec wherever it was prn
tical to do 20, "a last reeort, and when ar
pa1ently driven to the wall BY their own Il
Elections, they insist that they cannot delivt
tous. because VIC own the eide track and the
would be Heapassers 70 60 upon 1t to mako til
delivery! ask the Court Il this position
deserving Of a serious answer7 Would it NJ
ba trifing with the time and common eense
this Court to answer it 7 Does the commo
carrier By Wagon commit 1 tresp4ss when +
1 IL - Al -& i -t.-.x-.
> | goods 4 case must pc Vrty RI gone. Il
deed substantially given up, when counsel ,
: able "a these are driven to such eItemitiea
t and yet confess it seems to me the case itse
! drives them there. Let it be, then, sufaeiel
I apology for taking such poaition.
But counsel claim that inaanuch "a the
!, fendent, in its notice, offers to deliver Rr1
4 into our warehouse. At IN extra charge Of d
!: dollars per car, it thereby onera to cor
! ply with the Law. Now, these extra and pr
. Law Of carriers forbids. whers it ID PRACTICAL
Il for the carrier TO deliver goods to the CO
"a | hignec, and which the Legislature designed
= : set its face against. Ihe very proposition
q make Al extra chuge for running ca1s Il
Il hundred feet into side track is simply pr
Y posterous to one Of common observation, vi
!. has had opportunities to observe tho faciliti
n with which cars are switched and moved abo
the depot grounds Of any Of our railroad
~ Dut tho proposition to charge Us five dollal
+ and Mum 4 Co. nothing, for the Same se1yit
.s demonstrates 1t once that this extra Charge
70 not designed a. faiC compensation for ser
i ccs honestly rendered, but as an extra bu1th
70 put upon us With the design to break up \
% destroy onr businees, Ind to favor others 1T 9
" expense. This attempt 1t favoritisn is odio
% in the eye Of tho law, and must meet it's ste
g injury to tho public no less than to Us. tn.
rs railroad corporations were not created r
20 special privileges that they might become
Nc masters OF the people, but to serve d usc
.. purpose, and there is no higher duty VII
IN they owe to the public than to treat al IL
1s arc entitled 10 the favorable consideration
~ the courte and the Legislature, but when Il
I'd abuse their power they must be restrained.
50 Counsel suppose that the Legislature.
70 70 passing this warehouse Law. did not intend
oe require the defendant to run its cars OF
~ ~ whes, it could 60 60 on Its own track
iee construction would render the act utterly m
" " toFv. AB the roads invariably own striT
Y ! land to eome distance outside Of the TT
ghu uron which no individual has the II
ID 10 build q warehouse, it must he utterly
n ~ signcc upon its own tznck. nniees they cho
~ ~ to build side t1Ack. for tho purpose Of de
e1ing grain to the individual. Although
ourselves would come precisely within
rule, aud would in this case be entitled to
~ ~ relief sought, set ours is probably tho {
=. ~ titled to the henets OF the law, under
~ a:' forced construction given to it by counsel.
- On page 10 Of this Argument. counsel
H. ~. ain short, the defendant may deliver s
ual .ne into the complsinant's grain house or moi
". ". it may choose" This seems to me Fa
Egeff cool. 1t admits the existence Of all nee
=. =. facilties to deliver the grain according to
E' consignment, There Is no impedimcnt to
~ ~ complying with the express mandate Of
~ ~ statute. a. well as the requirement Of
Se common Law, aud yet it may do 20 or not,
u1e @ pleases. Ne choose to submit it to this &
sss whether this creature Of the Law. that
as: onlv bv virtue Of the 1aw. who depends 70
l. yerv existence On m observance Of the
Sc thall not only tr7nple the law under foot.
sts .E shamelessIv taunt its defiance in the fac
-. the Supreme Court
ght Hut admitting our rights have been viol'
.ta. s and the law hss been disrcgardcd. it is de
'3Gs that We have sought the proper remedy.
tns jurisdiction Of the court h denied to grant
49,. | relief asked
sis- An Answcr has already been given to
snv rortion Of the argument which insists ths
irht arr confined to tie remedy given b. the
sFre ute. I wul simply repeat that this ets
onsc imposing the duty upon the defendAn
i1},t deliver the goods TO the conagnee
r1its practicable. il but declAratory Of
nv common Law, and that the remedy
sna | ec1ibed by the statute is ouly cunulatis
isla- vii no" eonAnes, io1 "onei''' ue ane
ii.e Tho jurisdiction OF tho Court Of Chxnc
r. | denied, because We have N adequate re
+he At law. II TIC fact be 20, then cannot
the conclusion. II the courts Of Law
MON Justly and trly measure me anou' f..
such damages sustained os tnls ntss1a o. oa. u
Dose and Judgment in damages make ns whol!
,eeiI as well On as il the defendan: proS1ptl
IN fully discharged It's duty toward us in tt
,isla- g1hr then l chees!nnS aounts now