Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-03-15
sTEiiPnIS APPEAL
WEDNESDAY, 50: MARCH Is, 1882
RAILROADS AND EMINENT DOMAIN

= In Massachusetts public attention il
turned, just now, TO peculiar Pt1nse in cUn
nectiou with railroad construction Of so op.
pressive snd unjust character that it ought
no longer to be allowed to continue unre.
proved and unchecked. The evil complained
of grows out of an abuse of 'tbe right of emil
nent domain" conferred by the State in rail-
road grants. The right of eminent domain
is defined az that superior dominion of the
sovereign power over all the property within
the State, including that previously granted
by itself, winch authorizes it to appropriate
any part thereof to a necessary public use;
reasonable compensation being made. When
company has obtained a charter for rail
road it proceeds, or should proceed, to desig-
nate the land it will require for its line, and
on paying reasonable compensation the
owner must surrender to them the land they
require. When charter is obtained, it is
evident that the property along the line ex-
pected to be taken is strongly affected in
value oy the uncertainty as to whether it
will or will not be taken. 1t becomes
therefore impossible to sell it in the
ordinary way, and difficult to let it
to a tenant. The owners of the
railway charter can please themselves, how
ever, when they will put an end to the I'M
certainty. Perhaps the charter was taken
out with some Interior view, and without any
intention of constructing the line at ALL still
the owner of the property affected must wait
with his property under a cloud. Perhaps
the only object of those obtaining the char
81, #, alra Oh
property to pay them blackmail, in the
shape OF purchasing their charter at a heavy
price, that they may thus be able TO retain
possession of their own. There are many
cases where property is subjected to this pos
sible exercise of the right of eminent do
main, and when the company to whose will
the owners are subjected delay coming to
decision, those owners and their property,
not the company, must suffer the inconven
fence and the loss-there is no defense and no
protection. Those who do the wrong are the
very persons who are at liberty to do "a they
please for their own advantage. although
another must suffer loss. The question at
once arises whether the parties interested
are the parties who should have this right?
The Massachusetts, Senate in discussing
plan to protect private estate against this
abuse, By creating tribunal-or empower
ing the State commissioners-that shall de-
eide whether the road asked for is needed,
and if so, whether the application for char
Ter is made with good faith, and so on. If
the charter be granted the constituted au-
thority must see that the rights conferred
are not made means of expressing citizens.
When the legislature Of Tennessee gives our
citizens the protection of the law against
railroad injustice, it is to be hoped it, also,
will Incorporate provisions such as those con-
templated in Massachusetts. There is suffi-
cient to bear with from railroad monopolists
without leaving in their hand the exercise,
unrestricted, of the right of eminent domain.