Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-02-14
A Dnnhla Snrnr1sn.

We would hardly have published the fol-
been directed TO an article penned by our
selves.
We are surprised that a true Virginan
and friend OF Richmond should make to the
proceedings OF tue Terminal Company OBJ
jecuons which could appropriately come
only from rivals Of Richmond.
Estates RI hts" misses our point. We
ask the Attorney-G General TO leave this whole
matter where 1t helongs-iu the courts. we
claim that he has no right to apply for writ
az quo todrrdnto against the Terminal Com
pany. Why not? Because there are only
two things which the law says will give him
that right. lie can apply for 1t only
First, for misuse or pon.use by corpo-
ration Of its chartered privileges and fran
chises; or,
Second. for the exercise OF q privilege or
franchise not conferred upon II by law.
The fact. IL IL be fact, that the csmpany's
charter might be found TO be uncOnstltu.
tiopal does not give the Attorney General
the right to spply for a writ OF quo ,odrranto
under the Code. The charter is conshtu-
tional until pronounced unconstitutional 10y
court OF competent jurisdiction. 1t is not
the company's fault II the charter be Inn
properly wOrded hut the States fault, and
the State cannot take advantage Of its own
wrong.
To the Editor OF the Dispatch:
confess myself somewhat surprised st
your editorial In the Dispatch Of Tuesday
last headed The Terminal
u) You speak OF an "unimporisnt and
thOugbtless disregard OF its charter limila-
tons" by the Terminal Railroad Company.
My impression IL that there u not one rail
road In one Thousand thst Is ever guilty OF
Z" u0uQhtIess disregard OF its charter limits.
tions." such disregard Is deliberate aud
wiltul and always intended for the benefit
lnot OF the railroads bun OF the directors,
aud therefore no disregard Of its chartered
limitations Is unimportsnt
In this particular case the wrong-doiug
complained OF may be OF very serious cha
racter. II II alleged In yestsTdsy's New
York Herald that Jay Gould had come INTO
the company. when bad produced. as al.
legged by the llersld's correspondent. "a
growing feeling OF unessiness, amounting
almost 70 alarm, among the mercantile ADD
farming classes thfoug bout the South ~ they
witness the absorption OF their lines by the
Richmond snd West Point Terminal Railway
and Warehouse Compsny." | need not
copy the rest Of his letter. Suffice II 10 say
II shows an extreme apprehension that this
railroad will destroy "All competition except
by wsur routes between the Potomac aud
the gulf. the Atlantic coast aud the Missis-
sippi river" 10 il worth considering
whether or not rsiro,d with snch power
for mischief should not be curbed on prin-
sciple, especially when Jay Gould Is dlree-
tor
(2) Bot / am more surprised AZ your second
positlon-that you would be opposed to
puuishing the company unless. Indeed, toe
siezed violations were serious aud such as.
the Legislature would not be wiliing 10 cure"
You add that the counsel OF the company
here "set forth facts which show clearly that
the Legislature has alresdy passed In effect
upon the fact, II II be fact, that the objects
OF the Richmond and West Point Termiu 4
Company are not fully set forth IN the title
OF the act Incorporating that company"
Now, tue Contribution OF Nifgiuls ARTICLE
", section i5) declares that 'tpo lsw snail
embrace more than one object, which shall
be expressed 10 IFS Title" This. believe,
IL the provision charged 10 have been VIC.
lsied BY ths Terminal Company. Whether
the violation was serious or not. whether the
Legislature would De willing TO cure the de-
feet or net, aud whether the company should
be punished or net are considerations which