The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-01-03
10 control their rates of charges and

that the British Parliament declared
that in selling railroad property undel
mortgage the stock could not be sold
because 1t belonged TO individuals, ant
such sale would impair the charter.
We also learn from this article tina
1t has been decided in effect, that t.
grant exclusive right Of way through
the public domain Is contrary to pub
lie policy; and that cession Of the
right Of way to railroad company, Is
not feesimple, but only an easement
and therefore such corporation has nc
power to grant exclusive right Of way
to telegraph company, because that
is contrary to public policy.
1t Is asserted that Governor Stone,
in the pamphlet, overlooks every thing
else, and plants himself upon the
Dartmouth College decision, when in
fact that decision is no where referred
to except ina verbatim quotation from
an opinion of the Supreme Court of
Ohio, which was warmly commended
by the Supreme Court Of the United
States. The writer Of the Mercury
article also says that the Governor
mentions the State of Illinois, but
overlooks or passes by the action un-
der their laws since the adoption Of
the constitution in 1870, without
knowing the results; when in fact,
over two pages of his "pocket Veto"
is devoted to the identical laws to
which the Mercury refers him for Use
in future veto messages, and winds up
with a suggestion similar to that in
the closing paragraph Of the Mercury
article! ..
But we cannot, in the brief compass
of this article, follow the Mercury
through its learned disquisition on
the subject. The above illusions to it
however, will at once serve two pur-
poses, viz: first to show how mild and
wide he shoots of the true mark, and
the, at least seeming want of fairness,
with which he deals with the Govern
or's argument. 1t was not the pur-
pose Of the "pocket veto" pamphlet to
discuss turn-pikes, macadamized roads
and telegraph lines etc, in either Eng
land America, France, or Germany; nor
was it the purpose to show the policy
Of the British Parliament, OF the Him
Dis Legislature in granting charters to
interpretations, or passing laws to deal
with and regulate railroads and their
charges.
The Governor no where takes the
position that it is not competent for the
in granting the charter, to
'eserve the right to control or regulate
he rate of charges. On the contrary
his right is conceded, at least infer
But this was the great diff
,ulty in the way of the Barry Bill.
The Legislature, in granting charters
o the roads in this State, to be affect
ID by the bill, had distinctly conferred
his right on the roads, and thereby
uttered into n solemn contract with
hem; which contract the Barry Bill
to annul and destroy. 1t
vas just that thing which the Gov
rnor said it could not rightfully or
egally do.
The question was, is the BARRY
BILL" constitutional, and such law
$ was entitled to his approval? Or,
,as it, and is it, liable to an objection
Jhich, with a conscientious executive
worn to support the constitution, is
OF only grave objection, but one
hat is insurmountable, because it is J
in it's Observation-Disclosures
he provisions of the bill are in direct c
onfiict with both the State and Fed |
raj constitutions, and in plain viola
on of the clause which forbids the =
assage of the law which 'impairs the ,
litigation of contract?"
We confidently submit it to an in Il
,lligent and impartial public, that '
he law is unconstitutional in it's pro- a
isions, and that it was more than an |
Heightened and conscientious execu- u
We dare do to approve it. With :,
lual confidence we submit the further t
that the Mercury in its o
udied article, has shot wide of the .
lie true issue, and has left the Gov |,
nor's argument wholly unanswered. 81
i