The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1896-10-29
CAUCASIAN.
~. O., October 20, 1896
HAT 90 YEAR LEASE AGAIN.

10 investigate the ninety-nine year5
lea.e Of the N. G.. X. X and to have
the validity of the same passed upon
6y our courts. The directors of the
\. c. Il. X. clearly acted "ultra yires"
and the United States Supreme Court
has 30 held in the Pennsylyania 4 K.
a,..ust the 81. Louis and Alton, ll9
4. =. The court decided that "ua-
le.. specially authorized by its char
tr OF aided by some other legislative
action a railroad company cannot by
lra.. Or other contract turn over to
another company for long period
OF time its road aud all its appurte-
ran;ps, the use If its franchises and
tine exercise Of it's p) yers nor can
INV other railroad company, without
similar authority, make contract to
run Or operate such road, property
AMI franchises of the first corpora
tim. such a contract is not among
the ordinary powers Of a railroad
company, aud Is not to be inferred
from the usual grant Of powers in a
RAILROAD charter"
This ease came to the Supreme
Coart FROM Indiana Commissioners
gs. Il t. Co., 5Oth Indiana), and the
co0r, gJes on to say: at is CITED, in
the buef Of counsel for complainant,
az flaming the doctrine, that III
Indiana the right of railroad compa
MES to lease their roads to other com
pslI.5 IS recognized by the judiciary
Of that State. We think t proves
the opposite. The lease in that case
Was held void as being "ultra wires.
All the arguments of the court
are "blsed on tie proposition
that the corporation Can do
no valid act unauthorized by
statute, and can make no con-
tract in contravention Of pub
lie policy" The court further
says: ave look in vain, in this
latest decision of the State, for any
assertion of the proposition that by
the laws Of that State, or by the de-
csons Of its courts, there exists any
law by which one railroad company
can by lease, or by any other con-
tract, make an absolute surrender Of
its road and its franchise to al
other Mr.. Justice Miller, deliv.
ering the opinion of the Court, in
Thomas vs.. Il. Il. Company, 101 U,
5. says, "When q corporation like q
railroad company has granted to il
by charter franchise, intended il
large measure TO be exercised for the
public good, the due performance Of
these functions being the considera
ton Of the public grant, any con
tract which disables the corporation
from performing those functions
which undertakes, without the con
seat Of the State, to transfer to 9th
era the rights and powers confessed
by the charter, and to relieve tn
grantees of the burden which it i'm
poses, ia o violation of the contrac
with the State aud is void as agains
public policy"
Ia the case Of the Central Trans
portation Company VS.. Pnllman Cal
\ Company, 1879 U. S. Reports, the
Cohrt-seys in reference to the case;
above named and quoted, "The clear
result of these decisions may bt
summed up thus: The charter Of
corporation, read in the light Of
cur general laws which are applics
bic, is the measure Of its powers, a.
the enumeration of those power
implies the exclusion Of 81
others not fairly Incidental. Al
contracts made by corporation
beyond tho scope of these powers ar
unlawful and void, aud no action ca
he maintained upon them in tn
courts, and this upon three Justine
grounds The obligation of ever
one contracting with q corporation
to take notice OF the legal limits c
It's powers; the interests Of its pow
ers; the interests of the stockholjer:
not to be subjected TO risks whic
they have never undertaken, an
above all the interests of the public
that the corporation shall not tran:
cend the powers conferred upon
by law. A corporation can MOI
without the consent of the leglsls
ture transfer it's franchise to a.
other corporation aud abnegate tt
performance of the duties to II
public, imposed upon it by its cha
ter in the consideration for the grail
Of its franchise. Neither the gra,
Of franchise to transport passe1
gers. nor general authority to Sc
aud dispose Of property, empowe
the grantee, while it continues to e.
ist as q corporation, to sell or
lease to another corporation its O.
tire property and franchise. Tn
case was decided at the Octob
term. 1890, of the Supreme court
the United States. Other case can
cited.
The question Of the lease Of the
G.. Il. r., vitality concerns the pc
pie of North Carolina. The diss
provGl of the people was manifest
at the time by the denuuciation
the press. The representative
the n. c.. Farmers Alliance ins
tuted two suits TO Test the validity
the lease of the N. GER. r. c
in Wake county and one in Guilf(
county. The suit in Wake v
instituted first and would have bt
pressed to an issue had not the .
torney- General denied permission
accordance with the liberty of act
allowed by the Supreme court.
The Cobb suit was secretly c
missed without my consent, or u
of my counsel, Judge Schenck.
behooves the people of North Ca
lima TO arouse themselves in rel
ence to the lease Of the N. c. X.
If allowed to stand it means the