The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1880-01-17

markets, Hence it is safe to conclude
that to furnish a cheap and rapid
means of transportation to market for
this valuable product. must have been
the chief motive that impellcd popular
subscriptions to the capital stock of
this Company, as provided for in it's
charter,
But upon Respondents theory, the
Legislature intended That the South
Carolina Railroad Company should
have the right to charge on cotton in
bales as articles Of measurement,
which at the rates fixed by its charter
would have enabled that corporation
to have charged on 500-poum;l bale
of cotton, containing 40 cubic feet, the
sum of 1920 from Columbia to
Charleston, distance Of l30 miles,
while tho same bale, if transported
that distance us heavy article, at the
extreme charter rate, would have
been charged $2.274 only. And ON
this basis of classification, at the rates
of toll allowed in Respondents char
ter, the Charge Oh bale Of cotton Of
the above stated weight and cubic
contents, would be from Columbia to
Charlotte, n. G., 10 miles, rated as
an article Of measurement, 5000, and
us an article of weight only $275.
The Respondents construction Of its
| charter rights, it will thus be pcrcciv-
ed, discriminatcs severely against cot
ton, which, it has been shown, might
be reasonably presumed to have been
the favored product of the State. But
we are not left to presumption in this
particular, for we have positive lcgis-
latiOn discriminating in favor of this
product. BY the Act of December
20, 1928, fixing ti.c rates Of toll to be
charged Oh boats passing through the
Lanstord, Catawba, Saluda and other
canals therein named, it was proYil-
ed, that "For every boat loaded with
cotton, one cent on each bale, for each
lock. For every boat loaded other
wise tl.an with cotton, 373 cents for
each lock. For every empty boat 124
cents. When Il boat is loaded with
less than thirteen bales of cotton it
shall pass us an empty boat. When
a boat is loaded with less than one ton
it shall pass as an empty boat" (VI.
Stat, 3Io.) The rates Of the Column
bia Canal were established by an Act
OF The same date, as follows: "For
every boat loaded with cotton, one
cent on each bale: hut boats loaded
with less than twenty-five bales Of
cotton shall pay one DOLLAR" For
boats loaded otherwise than with cot
ton, the following rates arc required: g:
From $500 to $500 per boat, accord
ing to size. For each empty boat
81 90.
1t will be observed that as to the
first named canals, a boat loaded with
j,400 pounds Of cotton, or twelve
bales, estimating Il bale at $50 pounds,
was allowed to pass as an empty boat,
and was charged only l24 cents, while
boat with one ton or 22I0 pounds of
any other laling than cotton was
charged 37t cents per lock. On the
Columbia Canal boat loaded with
twcnty-tour such bales, or any num-
bcr less than twenty-five, was charged
81, rs an empty boat, while q boat
with any other lading, however light,
twas charged at least $500. I have
| thought these details not unnecessary,
as they serve not only to exhibit tic
practical effect of Respondents con-
struction of its charter, but make
| manifest the fact that at tho very
period when the words, which arc
now construed to impose on cotton
tic highest rate of toll, were first en-
bodied in II railroad charter, it was
the declared policy Of the State to dis
criminatc in favor Of that article.
That there may be State policy, not
declared in terms. but detluciblc from
the general scope Of its legislation, as
| to Il fiscal or industrial enterprise,
have no doubt. In the Bank of Au-
gusta VS.. Earle (13 Peters, 5S4) Chief
| tN
tile alleged policy Of Alabama to cx-
ciudc foreign corporations from pur-
chasing bills Of exchange within her
limit: owe. however do not mean to
say that there are not many subjects
upon which the policy otthc several
States is abundantly evident from the
nature of their institutions, and the
general scope of their Legislation, and
which do not need the aid Of a positive
and special law to guide the decisions
OF tho Courts" But admitting,
afaMmenh g'atiu, that the words OF
tho charter i'll question arc ambigu-
Gus. the practical consequences Of Re-
sp0ndent's construction, above shown,
would be sufficient 10 reject ii. In
the case Of the United States vs.
Fisher q Cranch, 50D Chief Justice
Marshall said: "fhat The consequences
arc TO be considered in cxpounding
laws, where tho intent is doubtful, IS
principle not to be controvcrtcd.
Where rights arc infringcd, where
fundamental principles arc over
throwM-whcre the general system
of the laws is departed from-thc leg
islativc intent must be expressed with
irresistible clcarncss, to induce a
Court of Justice to suppose a design
to effect such objects" In Charles
River Bridge vs.. Warren Bridge, tho
Supreme Court of the United States
| say, "that any ambiguity in the
terms Of tho contract must operate
against the corporation, and in favor
Of tho public, and the corporation can
claim nothing but what is clearly
given by the Act" 11 Peters, 544
"ln the construction of u charter, to
be in doubt is to be resolved, and
every resolution which springs from
doubt is against tho corporation"
pcnnsylvania II. Il. VS.. Canal Com
lnissioners, IL Penn, 22.) cam
biguitics and uncertainties in the cx-
prcssions used. must be strictly held
against the corporation; and where
IL ~ pbc.,tuo QUO