The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-02-17
The Presidents Examlned-A Sur
prise for Messrs. Calhoon and Pat
terson-A Bad Law.

Inc fTeCeu6uLS EXdm1H6u n our |
prise for Messrs. Calhoon and Pat
terson-A Bad Law.
We feel called upon TO defend the po-
sition we have taken in reference to the
Senate amendment to the bill to charter
the Kansas City, Memphis & Birming-
ham Railroad Company, though we un
derstand that supplemental bill has
been introduced, whichs if passed, will
meet the most serious, if not all the OBJ
jections we have urged.
The CLARION has averred 'that the
charter of the Kansas City, Memphis &
Birmingham Company, which passed
the House on Friday, contains the most
remarkable provision ever placed in the
charter Of railroad company in this or
any other State and that no charter in
America contains such a provision"
No one has taken direct issue with us
on either of these propositions; but
Messrs. :. 5. Calhoon and Josiah Patter
son, attorneys, as counsel for the Mem
phis, Birmingham & Atlantic Railroad
Company, in a communication to this
paper, have said that in answer to the
arguments in favor of the provision
referred to, ii was boldly asserted that
there was no precedent fer 1t; thSt it
was violation of principle, and, not
withstanding the temporary character of
the restriction, that il was grant of
exclusive privileges" And they have
further said that THE CLARION seems
to have become impressed with this line
of assertion rather than of argument"
These gentlemen have collsted a few
so-called precedents-the came that were
used before the Legislature for ali that
they were worth, and more, too-and
have put them before the public, to
break the force of our structures. We
propose now to examine these so-called
presidents, and to demonstrate most
clearly and satisfactorily that they are
not precedents for the legislative action
which the gentlemen advocated, but
that they give point and accent to the
objections which we have hitherto made.
And we promise to furnish them with a
surprise before We get through with our
undertaking.
1t is true that the charter of the Mem
phis q Charleston Railroad Company
granted by The State of Tennessee con-
tains the following in reference to that
road:
After the route of said railroad
shall have been accurately SURVEYED
aud adopted, and a plat thereof
deposited in the Office of the Secretary
of State, it shall not be la~ful fol
any other railroad to be built, cut OF
constructed in any way or manner, or by
any authority whatever, running lat
.erally within twenty miles of the route
50 adopted, whether by said company OF
with the consent of the board of direc
tors"
But under this charter it is plain that
any railroad company might, without
interfering with the privileges of the
Memphis and Charleston Company. be
authorized to construct railroad across
the line of that Company or build
branches to it. In fact the charter
itself reserves the right to the Legisla
ture to authorize individuals and corpo
rations to construct branch roads to con
meet with that road, and to compel the
Memphis and Charleston Company tC
transport the cars of connecting lines
without unloading ut the same rates il
may charge others for hauling its own
loaded cars.
In strong contrast with this charter is
that of the Kansas City, Memphis and
Birmingham Railroad Company, which,
at the instance mainly of Aiessrs. Cal
boon aud Patterson, provides that the
Company "shall not locate nor con
struct its main line or any of its branches
within twelve miles of an airline from
Holly Springs to New Albany, Of an
airline from New Albany to Tupelo, OF
an airline from Tupelo to Fulton, and
an airline from Fulton to the Alabama
State line in the direct course of Bir-
mingham, Alabama" This disposes o.
one of the presidents completely; but
We have more that is interesting and
startling to say concerning it.
1t is also true that "the Legislature OF
Mississippi passed an a. declaring that
the Memphis and Charleston Company
should have and enjoy all the rights,
powers and privileges granted by the
Legislature of Tennessee" but we most
positively deny that the State of Mis-.
sippi ever gave or intended to give to
the Memphis and Charleston Company
the particular right, power or privilege
attributed to il by Messrs. Calhoon
and Patterson On the contrary. the
State of Mississippi, in terms most direct
and unmistakabie, refused, to grant
this right, power or privilege. We give
the language Of the State Of Mississippi
used on the occasion Of its refusal and not
our own; and re doubt not it will be q
surprise as well to the distinguished
attorneys as to the members OF the pres.
ent Legislature whom they induced to
believe that the State had done other.
wise. Il will be found in the ninth sec
| ton Of the Act referred to By Messrs.
Calhoou and Patterson, as having been
passed March /, 1854, and ia as follows:
Sec. 9. Be 1t further enacted, That
nothing contained in this Act shall pre-
vent the State Of Mississippi from levy
4 ing and collecting such taxes on the
property of said Company, within this
State, Is shall, By the Legislature there.
/ of, b. assessed On the property Of other