Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1877-04-27
LEDGER.
concluded prom FIrss Page.

AuA VNCA thC oltl COulpdhl , bAuOh3
except in the exercise of the right
Of eminent domain, and for the
public use Of enabling the county
company to get into the city to
carry passengers out ; the fact that
the language of the charter, taken
in its precise and accurate meaning,
limits the county company to run
ming into the county at a charge Of
10 cents, and confers no power to
limit its carrying to the city all
these reasons combine to establish
the construction of making this
strictly a county company, with no
right to run in the city except for
the purpose of bringing in and
taking out suburbans, at 10 cents
fare, and further to establish that
the county company could not,
while discharging its county duty,
compete with the city company in
carrying persons to and from differ
emit points Wltnln the Guy.
1t must be remembered, the
question is not whether one con-
struction or the other is the better
or more accurate. We might safely
rest on ours being the true and ac-
curate construction but the ques-
ton is, can you so construe the later
charter as to sustain the prior? If.
possible you must reconcile them so
as to sustain the old charter with
its limit of 5 cents in favor Of the
public. There is positively no diff
Guilty in giving the construction
that entities the company to
charge 10 cents for all pas
sengers going out into the ooan-
try, or coming thence into the
city, and limiting the charge to i've
cents to and from all points in the
city. This reconoiles the two char
tiers and sustains both; it gives the
people of Memphis their city travel
at five cents under their contract,
the first charter, and imposes the
ten cents on suburbans under their
contract.
To all these cOgent reasons de-
PENDANT has but one reply, to-wit
that permission to construct tracks
in the streets and highways of.
Shelby county includes the right to
build them IN the city, because the
city is in the county. Bnt if the
whole context shows that the legis-
latiVe intent limited defendant to
the county outside of the city, ex-
cept to get out and in the city, your
position is destroyed. We respect
fully submit this has been done.
Secondly-We invoke a rule of.
universal authority, that if the
court doubts which construction is
correct, it must be resolved in favor
of the public. To doubt is to re-
solve in favor of the company. A
private corporation can claim no
powers but such as are expressly
granted, or are essential to sustain
some expressly granted power.
| propose a brief reference to the
authorities for this rule and then
an application of it to this case.
In II Peters R., sos.
Charles River Bridge Company
vs.. Warren county: The court say
at page SAG, "In grants by the pub
lie nothing passes by implication"
Again, "That a corporation is
strictly limited to the exercise Of
those powers specifically conferred
on it." "The exercise of the fran
chise, being restrictive Of a public
right, cannot be extended beyond
the letter and spirit of the act.n At
page 547 the court say: "a State
ought never to be presumed to sur
render a public right which the
whole community have an interest
in preserving undiminished." At
page $40 the court say: "Can such
an agreement be implied 1t can.
not. In charters of this description
no rights are taken from the pub
lie, or given to the company, be-
You'd those which the words Of the
charter, by their natural and proper
construction, purport to convex"
In Richmond R. R. Co. We.
louisa R. R. Co., 10 How, r., D.
81, the court say: 'This act con-
tainS the grant Of certain privileges.
by the public, to a private corpora
ton and in amatter where the pub
lie interest is concerned; and the
rule Of construction, in all such
cases, is now fully established to be
this: That any ambiguity in the
terms Of the charter must operate
against the corporation, and in
favor Of the public; and the corpo-
ration can claim nothing but what
is clearly given"
In 8 How, R., p. 1888.
Perrine VS.. Delaware Canal Co.
The company claimed the right
to exact toll from vessels carving
passengers through their canal.
The court denied the right, SAYING:
ga corporation created by statute
is a mere creature Of the law, and
can exercise no powers except those
which the law confers upon it, OF
which are incident to its existence.
And as no power is given to this
- - -