The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-02-26

e u ware Valley and Kingston
Railway company before the
New York railway commissioners. our
distinguished fellow citizen, Judge
Hand. was called as a witness, for
the purpose Of explaining to the COM
mssioners the legal status of the
branch line which the Erie and Wyo-
ming Valley Railway company has pro
jected and laid out. This testimony
was important because the application
of the Delaware Valley ard Kingston
Railway company is founded upon the
assumption that it will be able to Sc
cure good connections in Pennsylvania,
and on the fact that it has an arrange
ment with the Erie and Wyoming COM
pany for the transfer of coal business
at LackawaXen.
In reply to questions, Judge Hand
stated that he had been Judge Of his
state for ten years before his appoint
ment to the supreme court lin 1889,
when he filled, for the remainder Of the
year, the vacancy caused by the death
of Judge Turnkey. He testified that
Delaware and Hudson company was
authorized to exercise all the powers
conferred upon it by it's New York
charter, except such as We're expressly
prohibited by Pennsylvania statute;
that, therefore, the Delaware and Hud-
son company, being authorized by the
legislature Of New York to construct
substitute for the canal, would
have the right to construct such
a railroad upon it's canal in Pennsyl-
vania. He also expressed the opinion
that the company. being authorized by
the laws of New York to discontinue
or to sell its canal, acquired thereby
power to do the same thing in Penn
sylvania.
Referring to the Pennsylvania gen.
eral railroad law of 1865. Judge Hand
said that it was the settled law of
Pennsylvania that a railroad company.
organized under that statute, had an
absolute right to construct any branch
line which it's directors might think
fit, and that the exercise of this dis
cretion could not be controlled by the
courts, unless it was exercised in bad
faith, or in pursuance of some direct
prohibition Of statute. He stated that
ne had no doubt of the power of the
company to construct loop line or
parallel line under the name of the
branch line, referring on this point to
several Pennsylvania decisions
person or corporation could raise any
objection to the want of power of a
foreign railroad corporation to acquire
land in Pennsylvania, and that where
corporation. not authorized to hold
real estate, had nevertheless acquired
1t and transferred ii to a corporation
which was authorized to do so, the
title in the transferee became perfect
and complete. This principle he said,
was established not only by the statute
of 1895, but, quite independently of the
statute, by long settled decisions of the
Supreme court Of Pennsylvania. fol-
lowed by the Supreme court of the
United States.
Although, In consequence of the tech
nicai objections of counsel opposing
the application, Judge Hand was not
allowed to testify in SO many words
that the proceedings of the Erie and
Wyoming company We're regular and
valid. he did so in effect. Every step
taken by that company. in fact was
put to him as a theoretical case. The
whole ground was covered in this way,
and 'the. substantial effect of Judge
Hands testimony was as emphatically
in support of the regularity and validi-
ty of the Erie and Wyoming company 5
action In laying out its branch line,