New-York tribune., 1875-12-11
THE COURTS.
THE PANAMA RAILROAD AND IT'S PLANS.

TIE PANAMA RAILROAD AND IT'S PLANS.
yUpGE DoNOnUE DEcIDSs THAT IT'S CEARrgB DoEs
NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH STRAIN
STRIP LINEs
A suit was begun several days ago by Aaron
Freeman, siockhOlder in the Panama Railroad Com
rsny 20 prevent the directors from carving out thor
tyoyred intention 10 establish steamship lines 20 New
York and san Francisco The question in the suit
whether the charter Of the Panama Railroad Company
authorized the running Of such lines by the Company,
or whether II coufned the Company 10 building and
operating the road, and the necessary Egterage 10
enable u to connect with ships and steamers al Aspn-
wall and Panama- The question turns tEe phrase
oIov Of tie charter which. after giving the power of
building the road. adds And of purchasing and nav
satnc sach steam sailing vessels may be proper
and convenient be used In connection win the said
road" TIE plaintiff claimed this merely lighter
facilities. The Company claims that H gave power
10 maze connections. IL pleased. with ports
which would supply the road with business. The follow
ing IL the substance of Judge Donohue's decision
After stating the general outlines Of the case he ex
smEes the point rsed that the charter acSornh- 70
tse detcnasnts claim D Unconstitutional under tg s
uon which iorods thai any private or local h saa eh-
He holds thai ms question alres on tLe 'osuctloh o.
tae charter that ;hc charter confines the Powers OF
tr ans freight hnes hut assistants III tie work OF
the railroad oa the istimus, and 20 carry out
IT. designs aud Il Is only when the defendant seeks to
words n the charter Tor the purposes cOnplaueG
si, i.s , 'e i ;, " % y, a. a., % res,rS ~
ash Judge DOnchue said what tAc neu and object
tbe clause ia tHe Constitution in question IL bad
found that good measures had been saddied with
bad riders, and that Bulls drawn and eonsii-
cred by members Of tie Legislature, had addi-
lions put to them that made bad law and
gave power nos intended 10 be gwen:
In thie state al least ac PIE y."us system Aa succeeded
In passas bad laws snd tc ~ T a'ure Eas 70 be curbed
fEugs iu private ana local lcCsiatiOEi Oniy
subject wae 70 be included IN an act ana II should pe
sized Ia tie tiue
n'a.Ss - - ~ ~ s, ' ~ - In, In ~, % vi - & ssit 49, a., nc IN
rr..HF I'll n II ffls TN ~
~t ~ A. ,U,1,r. fno nan, Mi, a 'Tar r. yIir
steamers al tEc world taen vii, s.y tlat
thes T. Oy subject matter ia ~, or tat tAa subject
IL expressed IN the utic. II that cOnstiuctOn
Is correct directors may establish lines viii Europe,
Alcg Asia, aud all parts ci ih0se continents. Is
there ST., knoder IN tie Company that would Ike 10
have his pa. pry invested ta Company, subject O.
0ReI OF tle dircctols Tor tne lime being 80 establish
any hne taat VAIN or caprice uiSat suggest l. iAc
power exists AZ claimed teie II 90 place 10 which The
COMPANY Las uot aStAouty Uhoer its charter
chartered tAe legislature mSnt have Tor AL
!etule lII4, ,-'-N go -. 'i - 50 'i
II is not 10 De supposed tAA' he AcI1e.s "-o l.eeen
that act thought tAe5 were Vo,ihZ % ,rte 4 company
grant. Turn the case a. can ln s mind, ~
tie Constitution. ia WOW oi NE OF tie md te
enacns clause Itself, only one result presents itself
Tho euac.IuClt has only subject, cad with suc1
ii@ fbr rol.tIfion toufsiJcd for y t.c de,entaut
wOGsd ICude. tae AIT Unconstitutional luat urJ Ger
i,fI1-iuf ma tli, ..o...,. be- done
~iavn arrived at 5hs conclusion, ii is unnecessary
20 Gruss other QI. stlOrs raised except To The
plantin himself IL g. argued thai 80 fails go show what
h00s, tat q, is ouy small amount, o-d tHat
he j. ouir "a csIlaW. There evidence OF uial Iact
hOw much stocA he owns u m1,lef lAe deIeAiaAIs
tie CourL Wlat Is TIE CJjcot ia the direction % th-
Company. after ut.ry tfrfy years do4ueStt nee lu
ddereut construction Of IL, act ia nov attempting 70
pgt tins hhe, or what ls the OJect oi
Inc pGIntiH IA htcpms u 70 tAe course uiat Ios
nearly thirty years % has followed, 1 have not the
mclns before decide must ass-ule that both act
on wat tAe. lAlH t- -..'. A4 ~ IA - 80
lending Go sa@ lu. Cper motive. Oh iAt ilt o tc
plaintiff. 4n4 c S cililci 90 tlu r-hi tI
h M, m tn.t he asks dj EOt understand tLe Gefcuc-
tG@ nt denying tAs r-At oi the ldiAul
the injunction iac Il ccr fncu 90 "aH f..i ftfc-
I1.cniC eu. have n't 4lfcD.ecd uldt irut On TIE
VLOe, think tne injunction should De sI2ated.'