, 1872-11-12

Flow He Has Fulfilled His
Trust as Railroad and
Warehouse COr1lr lis
si0ner.
A Reply to Charges Insinuated Against
Him by Mr.. Il. T. Morgan, Jrs =

| -3'@A
| 10 the Editor Of The Chicago Tribune:
On the 29th of October. six days only before
the election, tho Inter- Ocean contained COM
munication of considerable length, by 1lr. r. r.
| MORGAN. Jr.. ono of the Railroad and Warehouse
Commissioners, which was intended, by inuen-
does and insinuatons, to asperse my character
Z; for integrity as an officer, being myself one Of
! tile Board, and Chairman thereof. WAS at the
time actively engaged in canyassing the southern
mart of tie State as candidate for Governor; and
even if had seen the article in question, would
| not hive had leisure to refute it in time. Some
| days after tho article of Mr.. Morgan was pub
| Iiahed, heard Of it in general way; but be-
| fore could have procured the number of the
Infer Ocean containing it, and could have re-
piled to it, the election, on which it was intended
to operate, would havo been gone by
It is presumable that the author Of the COM
munication foresaW the impossibiity Of my be-
ing able to answer him in time; and, in that
respect, he has assimilated himself to that class
Of unscrupulous partisans who arc in the habit
of rcsortlng to such tricks Just on the evo of
an election The general contempt of tho pub
lie, even by that part Of it which gains an I'D
vantage by such mannuvres, is usually the
reward Of such 8 proceeding.
There are many points in hlr. Morgan's COM
muuication on which might take issue, but l
have no time to waste, and will confne myself
to few Of the most salient calumnies, which,
though not openly made, are clearly inslnuated.
never counsellcd with Mr.. Spencer or Captain
towel, or otherwise at any time given any pro-
fessional counsel, or his presence, to aid IL q
speedy and successful prosecution of that suit"
(the quo-ara7'rd1lto case in Mclean County,.
Nov, tho Commissioners Executive Off
GERS. We may, to 8 very limited extent under
the law, initiate proceedings against Railroad
Companles and warehoueemen; but certainly
it would very i'll become me, Or any other mem
bert act counsel in ell the various cases which
may arise under the law 1t might as we'll be
argued that, because the Governor has to see
his duty to attend to ell the lawsuits in which
the Srate is party. It would have been assum-
ing very great responsibility on my part to
have acted as counsel ior the State, and entire
y unsalled l for as the state BY iaw is repre-
General. Besides, considering the task, no law
yer whose practice has ever extended beyond
Justices Court would ever take the Office Of Rail-
road and Warehouse Commissioners, it subject
to the condition that he should give his personal
attendance and bis professional assistance to all
cases arising under the various laws concerning
railroads and warehouses; The fee
in one single important case, if lie were allowed
to charge Que, would be probably more than one
L
then, as one which is SO puerie as not to deserve
any further consideration.
No one, however, knows better than Mr.
Morgan how often have been called upon in
the Board and outside of it, to give my views in
regard to the proper construction OF the laws.
In corresponding with Railroad Companies, with
the superior officers Of the Inspection aud Regis
trar's Department, and in giving instruction. to
State officers, it became, in very many cases,
necessary to ascertain the true meaning of tho
IHw and fO cHnafr11rtfnY1 cf IL tn
correspondents in clear and concise language.
j claim that have performed my duty in I'LL
these things. l have, moreover, whenever it
was deemed necessary, made suggestions as to
the law and the mode of proceeding to the At
torney General, aud to States Attorneys, ~ my
very lotter to Mr. Rowell, published by Mr.
Morgan, shows.
The substantial charge, however in Mr.. Nor
gans lnsidl0us communication is this: that
preferred to test the case Of unjust discrInna-
ton by railroads in action Of debt for 81 600
penalty. which the statute gives to the person
aggricved for every instance Of such discriniua-
road for forfeiture of it's charter. The reason is
stated in my letter to Mr. Rowell, which Mr..
Morgan makes the groundwork Of his insipid
assault. Ny language IN that letter. is as fol-
lows: "Althougb, in principle, the decision of
question ought not to depend upon the form
OF action, yet ne all know-that ia. We lawyers
that Courts are far more reluctant to pronounce
forfeiture OF charter than they would be TO
infiict q fine upon Company. The Commits
siVners desire to present The case made under
the most fnuDrdbke aspect as to secure, If pos
sibte, Favorable decision"
In the same letter, say:
ut is not contemplated to diemiFs tile infor-
nation, but wonld desire to press the other &C.
Our object is, as before stated to get the cases be-
fore the Courts, so that Tie possible consequences
Of decision may mol deter TIE Court from 7nch-
ing one USFAvonAnLE to Tue road."
here, because then everybody would say that 1
acted for the best interest Of the State.
No maxim is older and more universally OBJ
served by Courts. than that " "For. textures are
odtous in laD, and that Courts aoiN mol fduor |
Mena." It is also familiar principle. in all |
cases Of quo aoa,ranto for forfeiture Of charters
or for custer Of Office, that Courts will look at |
the consequences; and they have often refused |
to give even leave to f{o an information, a. |
though 3 clear pri7aa 5acie case was presented |
for declaring ali Office vacant OF charter for !
felted, where the consequences might be disas- |
trous to the public. |
No one, but an ignorant man or proraricating !
lawyer, could draw, from what said about the |
practice Of Courts in such cases, the Inference !
that meant any disrespect to the Courts in my |
letter to Mr. Rowell. When tho principle is |
fairly and Bquarely presented, Courts will de- |
eide it the same way, whether presented in one !
form or the other; but, when forfeiture is
asked, Courts will sustain technical and formal
objections to the very form OF the actions, and,
avoiding decision on the merits rule cases out
Of Court On mere technical grounds. If I am
correctly informed in the very case now pending |
in Mclean County against tho Chicago & St.
Louis Railroad Company, great deal of time
has already been frittered away by arguing more
formal and technical questions; and the pro-
ceedng, commenced year ago, is still pending.
and no decision has been obtained on the merits
yet, even By the Circuit Court.
Another charge is, that the amendments pro-
posed to the former laws-whlch amendments,
or rather substitutes, provided, amongst other
things, that the State should also have penal
action, 30 as not to be dependent upon the will
of private poraons to commence suits or not;
providing, also, aB the cheapest and promptest
mode OF bringing recusant Railroad Companies or
warehousemen to torms for proceeding by in
dictment for any and every violation Of the
Railroad Warehouse acts, would haze dismissed |
the pending case in Mclean County, because the
said substitutes contained repeating clause.
Now, the bills introduced at my instance in the
House we're substantial transcripts of the old
laws, repe4lng clanso and nil. only that, out Of
five or six bills, had framed but two. The es-