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

In 5 Mallace, n 20, tue dig
hampton bridge, the court Say
chat charters are to be continue
most fayorably to the State, and il
grants by the public, nothing passe
by implication. This court has re
, peaEedIy reasserted this doctrine
land the State decisions are nearl,
all the same way. The princi
ple il this-that all rights which
are asserted against the public
must be clearly defined, and moi
raised by inference or presumption
: and if the charter is silent about (
power, it does not exist. Ii, on /;
fair reading of the instrument, rea.
sonable doubts arise as to the
proper Interpretation to be given tc
it, those doubts are to be solved in
favor of the public; aud where it i;
susceptible Of two meanings, the
one restricting and the other ex-
tending the powers of the corpora
ton, that construction is to be
adopted which works less harm to
the public"
In 10 Bush (Ky.) R., 742.
Railroad Co. VS.. Warren County
Court, the court say: "Where 8
corporation claim powers, derived
by reference to another charter, a
fair and reasonable doubt whether
the legislature intended to confer
the power should be resolved in
favor of the citizens and against
the corporation"
In 8 Head r., 343, our own Su-
preme Court say: "a grant OF
privileges by the State to a body OF
adventures must be construed in
favor of the public and against the
grantees"
The real question is, whether
there is anything in the amended
act giving as it does to the city
company the rights and privileges
of the county company which re-
peals the restriction to five cents
fare imposed in the last clause Of
the 9TH section of the defendants
charter? |. the defendant is right,
that restriction is now repealed. Ia
Potter's Dwarris on statutes and
constitutions, p. 154, note 4, it is
laid down, that lit is generally tC
be taken that the legislature only
meant to modify or repeal the pro-
visions of a former statute in those
cases where such object is expressly
declared" Now, can it be SAID that
the Legislature has anywhere de.
clared, in the amendment referring
to and adopting the county charter,
or in the county charter, its inten-
ton to repeal the FIVE cent limit Of
the 18th section Of the ori4na.
charter?
The learned author goes on to
say: at is always to be presumed
that the legislature, when it enter
tains an intention, will express it,
and that too, in clear and explicit
terms 1t cannot be pretended
that there is any such clear
and explicit declaration of inten-
ion here. Then is there any neces-
sary implication to that effect:
These words, necessary implica-
tion," have received an interpreta.
ton in a very elaborate judgment
Of Vice Chancellor Wood, in the
case of Re. the London and Eastern
Banking Corporation, n Law j.,
Oh. 457, 461, where that learned
Judge says: 'No doubt it would
be a sound principle of construc.
ton to say necessary implication
THAT is, an implication which ad-
mits of no other construction when
you put the two or three clauses to
gether) might be in some casei
equivalent to an express enact
ment."
Now let us apply the two rules
thus deduced from all these author.
titles.
First-That a company of adven.
%turers, take by their charter, only
such powers as are expressly and in
explicit terms, given ; and any
doubt must be resolved in favor 0.
the public; and only such power,
are implied as are indispensable t.
expressly granted powers.
Second-That a former clause Of
act is only taken to repeal a later
by implication, when an irrecon.
cilable repugnancy exists, 80 tina.
the two can't subsist together.
The amendment and the county
company charter do not anywhere.
in express terms, either repeal tht
five cent fare, prescribed by the I'll
section Of the first charter, or gran
expressly to the city company thu
right to charge a passenger riding
between points within the city oyei
five cents.
Does the amendment or county
charter by implication work suci
repeal, or grant such right to chargt
an increased fare within the cit,
limits?
I They do not, for we have showi
that the county company charte,
created purely a county company
which could not run in the city ex
cept to discharge its county duties