Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1877-04-27

Memphis city. Section 6 provides
that this company is authorized to
construct and run their railroad on
any of the streets or highways Of
Shelby county. The language is
not "the streets and highways IN
Shelby county, but COZ" Shelby
county. Accurately speaking, the
streets and highways Of the city of
Memphis are in Shelby county, but
they are not the streets and high
ways "of" Shelby county. "In :"
means situated or located in, but
"of" means belonging to-" The
streets of Shelby county mean those
belonging to Shelby county; and
the streets of the city, while they
are in the county, do not belong to
the county, but they belong to the
city. So, constituting the language
Of the sixth section according to
its precise and technical meaning,
this company was authorized to
construct its roads in the streets
and highways OF, that is, belonging
to, Shelby county, and this ex-
cludes them from the streets of, or
belonging to, Memphis. We do
not mean this technical meaning is
controlling, but when in harmony
with the purposes Of the charter
and its context it is Of weight and
force in arriving at a true construc-
ton.
The last clause of the sixth Sec
tion provides, and may "collect
from each passenger a sum not ex-
ceeding ten cents" This limit to
ten cents when a company, then in
active operation within the city,
was limited to five cents, further
manifests an intention to confne
the county company to the county
outside Of the city.
The eighth section clearly shows
that the authority given in the
sixth section was limited to the
county outside Of the city; for it
provides, "said company is hereby
authorized to connect with and run
their cars on, and over any track of
other street railroad companies in
the city of Memphis" AS the pre-
yious section had only authorized
this county company to run over
the streets and highways of the
county, this Sth section (authoriz-
ing connection with and running
over the tracks of other companies
in the city, plainly and obviously
shows that the county company was
only to come into the city for the
sole purpose of making convenient
and effectual their duty and right
to carry persons outinto the county.
No other reason can be given why
it was allowed to connect with and
run over the tracks of other COM
panies in the city.
Let it be observed, that there is
no other express grant in the coun-
ty charter to run on the streets of
the city. If it exists, it must be by
implication and it does not weak
en- our construction to admit that
the court may, in order to make
etfectual the duty of carrying into
the county, imply a right to come
into the city.
But if the implied power is given
it can only be for the purpose and
to the extent of allowing it to come
into the city to carry persons into
and out of the city. In other
words, to give the full benefit to a
suburban, it allows the county com
pany, by use of the city company
track, or city streets, to take up the
suburban at any point in the city,
and without change or additional
charge, carry him out into the
county.
If the county company charter
was intended to create a city char
ter or one which might limit its
running to the city limits, and
charge ten cents fare, is it not
strange that it nowhere mentions
the city, except in the permission
to connect with and run over tracks
of the city companies; and is it not
strange that it gave it a maximum
limit of ten cents fare, five cents
more than the prior company, then
in successful operation, and bound
to carry all persons within the city
for five cents?
Charters are granted to dis
charge public duties for the
public good. What public good
in this, if susceptible Of such a
construction? A strikingly favor
able reason in support Of this
being strictly a county company, is
found in the folly of considering
the general assembly as creating a
second company to perform the
same service, at 10 cents, as the
former was then successfully doing,
and was bound TO do for the public
at 5 cents. Can we adopt a con-
struction which imputes such stulti-
iication to the Legislature? Again,
if the defendants construction be
correct, the public of Memphis
could have been wholly deprived of