The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1896-10-27

to be exercised for the pubic good, Gne
d1e performance of these functions be-
ing the consideration of the public
grant, any contract which disables the
corporation from performing those
functions. which undertakes, without
the consent of the State, to transfer to
others the rights and powers conferred
by the charter, and to relieve the
grantees of the burden which it i'm
poses, is a violation of the contract
with the State and is void as against
public policy.
In the case of the Central Transpor-
tation Go. VS.. Pullman Car Co., 139 y.
s., the court says, in reference to the
cases above named and quoted: THE
clear result of these decisions may be
summed up thus: The charter OF a
corporation, read in the light Of our
general laws which are applicable, ls
is the measure of it's powers, and the
enumeration of these powers implies
the exclusion of ali others not fairly in
cidental. All contracts made by 6 0
poration beyond the scope of these
powers are unlawful and void, and no
action can be maintained upon them
in the courts, and this upon three dis
tinct grounds: The obligation Of every
one contracting with a corporation to
take notice of the legal limits OF i&s
powers; the interests Of the s5ockhOid-
ers, not to be subjected to risks which
they havenever undertaken; and above
all the interest Of the public, that the
corporation shall 0 Transcend the
powers conferred upon it by law. a
corporation cannot, without the con
sent of the legislature, transfer its
franchise to another corporation and
aOr0gate the performance OF the duties
to the public imposed upon it by it's
charter as the consideration for the
grant Of It's franchise. Neither the
grant of a franchise to transport pas
sengers nor a general authority to sell
or dispose Of property, empowers the
grantee, while it continues to exist as
a corporation, to sell or to lease it's en-
tire property and franchise to another
corporation.
This case was decided at the October
term, 1890, of the Supreme Court of
the United States. Osher cases can be
cited.
The question of the lease of the N. G.
Railroad vitality concerns the people of
North Carolina. The disepproval Of
the people was manifested at the time
by the denunciations of the press. The
representative Of the N. G. Farmers
Alliance instituted two suits to test the
validity of the lease of the n. g. Rail
road. One in Wake county and one in
Guilf0rd county. The suit in Wake
was instituted first and would have
been pressed to an issue, had not the
Attorney General denied permission to
bring suit in accordance with the lib
erty of action allowed by the Supreme
Court. The Cobb suit was secretly
dismissed without my consent or that
Of my counsel, Judge David Scbepck.
1t behooves the people Of North
Carolina to arouse themselves in refer
nee to the lease of the N. @. Railroad.
If allowed to stand, it means the ab-
sorption Of all our railroads by that
octopus, the Southern Railway Com
pany. Already it has it's hand upon
the Sea Board Air Line and the Cape
Fear & YadkIn Valley. Let not the
great financial questions of the day
completely obliserate this great ques
ton Of State policy.
JOHN GRAHAM.