The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-02-17

Intended to be buIit under tnls section
1887 between two points where rail-
Dad is no10 constructed, the general di-
,ection and location of such new rail-
Dad shall be at least ten miles from the
abroad already constructed; but this
iection shall not be construed TO refer to
INV point within ten miles of either ter
minus, or to prevent said roads from
running as near to each other for said
first ten miles from either terminus, as
the interests of said company building
The new route may direct"
The entire section, of which section
1859 (t) is a subdivision, is very elabo |
rate in its details, and provides specit-
cally for railroads crossing each others |
line, and for connections between the
various roads constructed and to be con
structed, which makes the Georgia law
different from the new de
part1re' in Mississippi. But the nota-
BILE feature of 1859 ~, is that it only
protects from "paralleling" the railroads
already constructed when the law was
passed lin 1890, leaving all Others to
" parallel" as much as they please. In
this respect it is quite unlike the Mem
phis, Birmingham and Atlantic Com
pany's amendment to the Kansas
City, Memphis AMI Birmingham Com
pany's charter; for that left it in
the power of the last named Company
to parallel the constructed portion of the
latter's line, but denied it the right 10
approach an imaginary line nearer than
a distance Of twelve miles on either side
of it,
In the case of the Mississippi and
Tennessee Railroad Company, the State
granted all il asked; besides, it is not in
point. For these reasons as precedent
it is valuless.
We will now notice some of the
reasons assigned by members for sup
porting the SUI ge,aeris amendment, as
stated by Messrs. Calhoou and Patter
son.
/. People who construct and operate
railroads have no more right to demand
that they shall do so ia n corporate
name, than the people who make and
sell corn and cotton" IF it is meant to
to say by this that people may construct
and operate railroads without license
from the State, it is to us novel legal
proposition, our view being that neither
corporations or individuals can construct
and operate railroads without license
from the State, and we affirm that this
is the law on that subject. If it is
meant to say that the corporations
should have no more privileges than indi
viduals we endorse the sentiment to the
fullest extent. If Messrs. Calhoon and
Patterson admit that people who desire
to construct and operate railroads havr
as much right to be incorporated and
licensed to do so as people who desire tC
make and sell corn and cotton, oul
case is gained. This is too plain t.
argue. Mississippi, which has never
refused to allow a corporation to make
and sell corn and cotton, or to do any
other useful thing, ought not to refuse
to char ter corporation to construct 8
railroad, between any points within the
State; especially since cotton and corr
may be made without a charter and
railroads cannot be constructed ant
onerated without one
The policy of protecting one railroad
by legislation, from the encroachmenti
or competition of another, has not pre-
vailed in this State There are now or
the statute books, unearned charters
under which the State could be honey
combed with railroads running parable
and at all conceivable angles with eact
other.
The only limitation or restriction o.
the character under discussion evel
placed in charter in this State being
that in the charter of the Kansas City
Memphis and Birmingham Company.
5. 1t is not wrong in principle OF
policy to allow two Railroad Companie:
to build their lines alongside or in close
proximity to each other. Many intelli
gent persons believe that one railroad il
worse than no railroad. and there is not
a community in the State having one
line of railroad, that would not welcome
all Others, come from what direction they
may. The Memphis, Birmingham and
Atlantic, is a case in point That road
is completed from Memphis end Holly
Springs, and along thai portion of the
line, everybody favors the construction
of the Kansas City Company, though ii
run parallel with the other.
3. 1t is no more the duty of the State
to protect one corporation from another
than 1t is to protect one person from
another. As well might hackman in
jackson ask to be protected from TIE
competition of his fellows The policy
of the State has been to grant charters
to all applicants, and it is the correct
policy. The restrictions put in them
heretofore have been only too few; but
the restrictions omitted were those in
which the State and not rival corpora
tons had an interest.
1t may be that the members living
along the extension from Holly Springs
to the Alabama State line, and their
constituents had no assurance that the
"other Company would build. If 50,
they are made to occupy ludicrous at
titude, because all the "reasonsD given
by Messrs. Calhoon and Patterson seem
70 be founded on the belief that their
road would be aparaIleled, !" aud thereby
destroyed.
/ We have no interest in the controver-
| 81 between the rival Railroad Compx-
mics other than desire 70 serve the pub
lie well and faithfully. re NE have any
feeling abont the matter it is one Of re-
greet, that We feel compelled to eriticise
the public acts Of 20 many Of our
esteemed friends, but We must Be par
doned for saying that the action Of the
Legislature In surrounding strip of
country twenty miles vide and one
hundred miles long with barrier
| asaiDst he Kansas City, Memphis 3