The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1886-01-20

pleted and in operation--that in the natur'
, of things there can be no competition il
transportation when there is no road ovel
which to transport. The constitution for
bids railroad corporation TO in any way
tcontrol any other railroad cor
poration having under its control a parable
or competing line nos parallel or compet-
ing railroad, and We cannot doubt that the
word line was employed adyisedly, in
this place, instead vf road or ''rairoad.
IL is the term constantly used to denote the
route of an extended railroad Thus in
section 2, Act Of February 10Th, 1910, relat-
ing to the assessment of damages for lands
taken it is provided THAT viewers may be
appointed, neither of whom shall be resi-
dents or owners OF property on or adjoining
the 'line' of such railroad, where manifest
ly the term line is used to designate the
surveyed route, and not the completed
road, as the view may be had before the
| road is constructed. So in Section 2, Act of
Congress of July 81, 1866. incorporating
the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company
the company is authorized TO take from
the public lands adjacent to the line OF road
material OF earth. stone. timber and so
forth, tor the construction thereof
These are the random instances of use
of the term which is SO common as to leave
no doubt of It's meaning in the clause OF the
Constitution under consideration. And un-
derstanding this meaning We are bound to
give il due force and effect. If we do not
the purpose of the Constitutional Conven
ton in enacting it, and of the people in rati-
flying it, might always be, and in this case
would be. entirely defeated. The purpose |
undoubtedly was to promote competition /
in railroad traffic. But ifa corporation en-
gagged in constructing a competitive road 1
may be controlled by its rivals, until the
road is completed, it would be entirely with
in the power of the rival to determine
whether that event should ever happen; as
of course it never would when it was the
interest of the rival to prevent it, for no
company would complete a road to hand it
over to a competitor.
For these reasons we think the proper eonstruc-
tion of the phrase "a parallel or competing lIne,
is that it includes projected road, surveyed, laid
oat and in process oiconstruetion, as we have
found TO be tho fact in this case il such road when
completed and in operation would actually esn-
pete with the road seeking control. Before com
pletion 1t is parallel when completed Il be-
comes competing"
RIGHT TO SELL STOCKS DEFINED.
During the argument counsel invoked the aid
# the undoubted general principle that the own.
ership Of shares OF stock, as Of other property,
carries with il the legal right SELL and contend
ed that the owners of the shares of the South
Pennsylvania Railroad Company could not legal
ly be restrained from 50 doing, and that inune-
tion against the purchase would have this effect.
We do not think the prineiele applies to this
case. We are not called upon to express any
opinion as to the right Of the individual share
holders to sell their several shares 6SHG.fde in
the open market. This, so far asthey are concern
ed, is intended sale in combination for the ex-
press purpose of enabling them to abandon the
rights and dulles conferred and imposed upon
them by the act Incorporating the company, and
putting the control OF their corporation into ths
hands Of its rival. This is an act contrary 20 the
public policy Of the State which they have 10
right 10 do
Indeed all the parties In this transaction seem
to have failed to appreciate the relations they sus
tain to the public. A eharter.is a contract and
contract must always have two contracting par
ties, upon each ofwhom 1t imposes duties as well
as ooniers rights The charter offs railroad COM
pany especially, while 1t confers, and because It
coniers rights of the highest kind imposes CORES
ponding duties. 1t invests the corporation with
part OF the sovereignty OF the State. the right to
take private property for-let il be clearly under
.tood-for public use But II the taking Of private
property for the purpose ofeonstruetng a railroad
lpon 1t is taking 1t for public use then the public
must have an interest in such use. And such is
he case "A railroad is public highway for the
public benefit :. The public has an inte--
st in such road, when it belongs to corpora
ion, as clearly as they would have &c it we're
ree =" "rhe company may be private
sut the work they do is public duty; and along
With the public duty there is delegated sufl-
ent share Of sovereign power to perform it. The
light OF eminent domain is always given to such :
,orporations but the right of eminent domain can
lot be used for private purposes -
shsrpless vs. Mayor, 9 H. les. .The right of EN-
nent domain nowhere justihes taking property
sr private use. Yet it is a doctrine universally
.cccptct Au1e state 1<0-iSldlule may a1thortAe
private corporation to take land for the construc
ion Of such a road, making compensation 70 the
wner What else does this doctrine mean If not
hat buiIding railroad, though it be built by
rivate corporation, is act done for public use
Ind the reason why the use has always been
Ield public one is that such road is highway
Ehether made by the Government itselfo by the
gency Of corporate bodies" Olcott vs. the Su-
'ervisors, l6 Wall, 69i per MIR. Justice Strong.
Ind the same eminent jurist when Justice Of 6
he Supreme Court of this State said of an unfn- {
she'd railroad that '.the Commonwealth had n (
ight to demand that all the resources rights and
redits Of the company should. be devoted to its
ompletion and that the directors of a railroad 4
are trustees in very Just sense for I
he Commonwealth Bedford Il. r. Go. Il Wr.
~.
THE INJUNCTION CONTINUED PERMANENTLY.
But as our purpose here is to show, merely, that
be parties to this transaction were not dealing |
18th purely private matter we will not pursue I c
his subject further. Nor are we now concerned I
18th the question whether there be power in the l
Durts to compel the construction OF a railroad by
corporation which has undertaken it. What we
ere decide is, simply that the eOrporators have Z
such right to sell their stock can in any way @
lterfere with the granting of an injunction TO !.
revent a competing corporation from obtaining
,ntrol of the corporation charged with the duty v
its construction.
We have not overlooked any Of the questions
rgued by counsel, but, in our view, the case does
Of call for the decision Of any other than those
,nsidered above The result Of the discussion is
lat the in junction must be continued as to the
ennsylvania Railroad Company, the Peunsyl
ania Company ana the Bedford s Bridgeport
ailroad Company and dissolved as TO the other
sfendants and a decree may be drawn accord
gly. J. w. SINoSToN, Z. j.
DIED.