New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-07-29
DUTIES OF THE RAILROADS.

Justice Haght, in the Supreme Court Chambers,
yesterday handed down his decision in tho cases
brought in the name of the people by the Attorney
General Of the State against the New-York, Lake
Erie and Western and the New-Yorl Central and
Hudson River Railroad Companies for peremptory
writs of mandamus to compel the companies k
exercise their franchises TO receive and
transport freight promptly and to per
form their duties as common carriers. Tho
two cases had been practically joined for the pur.
pose OF argument which was had last week on the
legal objections made by the companies TO the pro-
ceedings. The petition in each case sets forth IN
substance that the respondent is a railroad corpora
tion and subject to the duties aud obligations inn
posed by the State laws railroads; that it is
common carrier ard has refused substantially TO
discharge. its duties such, and has TO q
material degree. suspended the exercise Of its
franchise by refusing to take freight offered
it for transportation, and refusing TO deliver
incoming freight, to the merchants of the city. TO
the loss and damage of the people of the State, for
which there is no remedy in damages.
The companies in the suits were represented by
ex-Judge Shipman and Roscoe Conkng, who inter-
posed an objection TO the applications for peremp-
tory wrts, and moved to quash the temporary writs,
and in their arguments (which were replied to by
the Attorney-Genera and 4. j. James for
the people, all the legal merits of the
case were raised In the essential points
their arguments are upheld by Justice
Halght, who decides that on the showing
made in the application. the merchants who are
injured by the delay in the transportation of their
freight are not without adequate remedy in law,
aud that therefore they not entitled to the
traordinary remedy sought in the mandamus pro-
proceedings; that a mandamus will not issue on the
application of the AttOney-GeneTal to compel a
common carrier to discharge his duties that under
section % of the General Railroad Act as
amended in 1850. the railroads given
discretion to regulating the
time and manner for Transporting freight rendered
to them; and that TO direct the roads how TO do
this as would be required we're the writ prayed for
to be issued, is beyond the power of the Court.
POINTS OF JUSTICE HAIGHTs DECISION
The main parts of Justice Haights decision are
! given herewith:
Some OF the ques IONS presented upon this application
and Of importance. The conflicts that from
time time between capital aud labor present tho
most and difficult problem that the Government
NJ the present day las 90 solye III Is me duy o tne
Court guard and protect 10 the utmost every right of
family by manual labor, and when opportunity pre-
sents and in proper this Court viii not be slow
less TO aid him. The Court has not the power TO pre-
scribe scale o wages 1t has not the power to say that
he shall work for 81 20 per day that his employer
shall pay him per day Hitherto the amount Of wages
contract express or implied II the power exists az
all TO change the law in tins regard such power in
the legislative and not in the judicial branch Of the Cor
The questions presented upon the motion to quash the
proceedings are purely legal and do not Involve the
merits The first question presented s, WI the writ OF
mandamus issue on the application OF the Aorney.Gen
era TO compel common carrier TO discharge MS duties
as such fra IrsnebsS Is grant OF ga dr Ryege m
Government or sovereign power Ine right to MAINTAIN
highways, ferries and bridges 10 facilitate
stale rests in the Government sovereign
power And these rights can be exercised by
The s;ate has conferred upon the responea the right
to build. maintain and operate RI lway ior public
III the conveyance ~ persons property for hire. Ii
The right 10 construct road fron and 10 me place or
places named in the charter. the maintaining and oper-
ang OF it Tor the public pertain 10 the Government.
and the Government is therefore Interested in aud has
the power through ts Attorney General 10 compel ths
exercise OF the franchises conferred upon the espond
held that the writ OF mandamus will issue compel a
railroad corporation to operate the whole road as one
sengcr trains TO the terminus OF the road; 10
staining upon line OF road, consigned to il in
bulk; TO compel It to run daily trains; to compel the
TO intriere with navigation TO compel II to baid
bridge. II j. cORtendrd however that Whilst t.e writ
Gu,ies which 6eldnl to the state Government, and
watch conferred upon the respon-
! dent by the State, ii will not issue
ss such One Of tue duties imposed by law upon rail-
road corporations is THAI OF common carrier Ihe stat.
ute provides tnat every such corporation shall start
and their for the transportation OF passengers
\ times 10 De nKed ny pnDuc no.
cc and shall furnish sufficient accommodation Tor the
transportation OF all passengers and property as
shall within reasonable time previous thereto be offered
| for transportation"
The right to become a carrier OF persons and
property for hire does not pertain to or enanaIe rom
| the GOycrnment Every cltiZen, without gram or lie
cense has he right TO carry persons or properly rom
such com pehsaton AS Shall De agreed upon Ihe lao
y Of common carrier OF property Is tat or insurer
OF The properly except in OF loss or desirc ION 0y
| the act OF Goa OF puDuo ehenles Ample and
| complete remedies are pryiGed for the recovery
| sguee may sustain drought the fault or neglt
gence of the carrier IN the case Of the people
against the Su.qnehanna Railroad Company fo1 y. f
l6l the Court Appeals said: The people OF this
STATE have no general power 10 invoke the ACTON OF
courts Of Justice by suits in their Of sovereignty,
dress O civil wrong sustained by some etZeDs
at the hands Others When tho people into court
as plaintiffs in civil action, they must upon tneir
own rig for the relief TO which they themselves ara
enttled IL IS not enough for tue people 10 that
wrong has been done TO some one iAe wrong ap-
pear have been done 10 the people III order support
an action by the people Tor redress"
also been held that the neglect refusal OF
common carrier TO transport deliver freight according
20 the law governing Tue dnes o such crrier Is pr-
yate wrong 10 tAe particular shipper or eOsgnee con-
cerned ana redIess5ie by suit AT the Instance of suca
| snppef or COAsisIee ana thsl ~ nos
sucn public wrong as @.rt %in oi ha a"'n@a.s 1paIs
-Morawetz on Private Corporations at section 49e
says: The duties winch deVolye upon railroad COM
tAe Government public purposes mutt no. be con-
founded with their Obligations as common carriers foe
public operate ito line Of road because The road was
constructed with the public ald for public purpose
The usual duties Oi a common carrier then atLaca b.
tue emp Oynent IN wucn tne company is en-
gagged. II the company negit cts To operate the road
winch II mas DI THIS is injury 10 the public IN gen
eral and redress Le obtained only through ths
state, by VIII vi mandamls But the dutics Of rail-
road company as common carrier Tor hire may De en-
forced b. any person injured through TIE usual remedy
Dy acuOn for damages" See also secp0ns $50
ana 4s7 also LIZ pare Robbins, DOwhng's Re-
ports 5O6. Tue OF People eI rel omen ast tne
/, spoudent corporation, reported IN the I'D nun, p
535 was dcoaed by the general Term ot ths depart.
nent. An alternative writ Oi manoamls had eeA issu'o
upon application Of Cue Attorney General on inc ne
atlon OF OMEN ~ require the defendant 10 r''ne aa
carry crude the relatOr It's tan@ cars Iron %
place called CarIOlton To place called SSa