, 1873-03-01

Note from tho Hon. Gustuvus Kotrner.
TO tho Editor Of The Chicago Tribune:
SIN: You mny recol1eot that, shortly before
the election last full, tho Inter- Ocean and othor
Administration papers assaifed mo violently for
having boen ndyorso to prosecuting the Chicago
d Alton Railroad Company for q forfeiture Of
their charter. Mr. Morgan, one OF tho Commits
R1oners, supported those ohargea, which, In fact,
lie had originated in order to affoct my chances
OF nm election, and published my correspondence
with tho Btato's Attorney, which, ~ ho sup
posed, would give color to the alander.
Tho charge, asit Waa intondod to be prosonted,
was entirety un1oundod, md roated principally
upon the following passages In my correspond
ence with the statos Attorney:
Although, IN principle tho decision Of question
ws lawyers know that courts aro far more reluctant to
pronounce forfeiture Of charter than they would
be to i1aiot me upon company. ghe comnission.
favorae asso 10 a. 10 secure, IF POSSIBLE, 5apora-
It il not Contemplated to dismiss tho information,
but would desire to press tho other action arat had
before suggested to commence an aeton In tho namo
enSer
delay decision on the information. Our object be-
tn nass to s tna M n
the Court from making one uniavorable to tho road
Now, will not pretend that the Supreme
Court, in It's recent decision against tho Com
misaioners, would havo decided differently II tho
Judgment below had boon for penalty against
tho road for 81 000 instead Of forfeiture Of thoir
charter; but the passage In tho opinion which
snbon w certainly 60 very far toward sh9w .I
my advice to. pursue tho action for = penalty
WAS such Is beonme mo- aa the legal tnember
Of tho Commission, and could only have
been made the prctoxt Of m infamous charge
against mo (fayoritisrn towards tho railroad in
toroat In my ofdce} by either tho ignorant or the
malignant. The Court, 1t will bo soon, It With tho
Commissioners On oil the other points, would
not hnve sustained the proceeding for forfeiture
Of charter under the circumstances Ia which the
case was presented. The passage alluded to
from the opinion ia as follows: ,
Thcro IL another featuron this lsw to which deem
1t our duty to advert. AH the act at1n1s, for
fouro OF all franchises Ia tho only penalty that be
imposed upon company in prosecution instituted on
behalf Of the people and It IL imposed for tho first o.
amount to lno Of miionE Of dollars. t. not this .
violation Of tho spirit Of that constitutional provision
which sys In terms, that "Au penalties shall bo pro-
portioncd to the nature Of tho oGensen7 Is 1t
not also violation Of the aplrit Of the very
was framed, aud which requlsea .s Legislature to pass
laws to prevent unjust discrimination aud extorion by
railroad corporations, and enforce such aws by adc
quate penalties, to tho extent, ce<ssarg for that pur
oss Of forfeiture OF their property and franchises
Would 1t not bo bottcr to enforce tic Inv by series OF
final penalty Of forfeiture law admitting OF but
one penalty md that Of tile harshest possible charac
ter will necessarily, DO by the courts to close
criticism aud q strict construction.
You will oblige me by publishing this commu-
nication. Yours sincerely, q. KoEANEn.