Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-06-28


In dangerous proximity thereto.
rms Is the only logical construction
which We can put upon the act of 1872
bccause ii is provided by section :, tina
"ail acts and parts OF acts Inconsistent
with this act are so modified as To rem
der them consistent herewith.
of course the sislatIre has the power
TO authorize one railroad company
tax" the land of another railroad com
PAM, even that used for and necessary
Tor station purposes. Bu: II must be
D. express words ar necessary implica
ton. We see neither express words nor
nee cssagy implication IN the Language 81
section III, which would authorize one
| company to take the land Of another
company. used for ana necessary for
station purposes. Indeed the first clause
absolutely prohibits. and if the second
clause is so constructed, ii absolutely alb
rogates and annuls the first clause.
| II this statute can be construed as
authorizing one railroad company. when
some public convenience requires ii. to
| take the lands of another railroad com
| pany which are necessary for station
| purposes" for the latter company. The
company taking the lands can Of couis
| take them for its own station purposes.
under section 10, chapter 81, Of the revise !
statutes.
1t viii then logically follow that some
| public necessity may arise which VIII
| authorize a third company to take the
same lands for its own station purpose
This being so IL requires no tension OF the
| ina gination to conceive II some later and
authorize the original company To retak
IL sam" lands for station purposes: ANA
here wolid BE- the endless chain ~ TAX
| ing" which might 20 on until time shall
tr"mbl. on the brink Of eternity
1t is The general presumption in the in
ferpretaiion OF statutes. that the LesiSia-
tir" does not int nj AN absurdi,y. or tina,
absurd consequences shall How from it,
cnaCtm.nts. Such a result will. Therefore.
he avoided, ii the terms of the act admit
of 1t. by reasonable construction Of the
statute.
Lex Semper Intendit ouod Convent
Ration
Oates VS. National Bank, 100 L. s. 20
Henry ". Tilson. Il ", 80
State VS. Clark. - y. J. Law. 81
our attention has been attracted by the
| Language in the act Of 1872. which reads.
necessary for its use for depot plIr
Chap. II. X s. which reads. necessary
tor station purposes.
The phras, olosy was evidently changed
in the revision. because after a thorough
examination we can find no public act
which authorized the change.
a reference to tie several lexicosraph-
ers will disclose no substantial difference
in the meaning OF the words station"
and depot"
BE sure. the statutes make some dis
tinction in Chap. 81 where Sec. H. refers
Ia dcpots for freight and passengers ana
passenger stations: bat from out knowl-
edS" of what is required for depot pur-
poses uEd station purposes, We use the
words Interchangeable and give them the
same nearing.
The construction which We put upon
this statute. then. IS this: We regard the
first paragraph in this section as absn-
lutcly prohihitive. and the first question
raised 10y the second paragraph is
whether such land is necessary for sta
zion nnrp"s"s II We 50 ma, then ths
10y the first paragraph of the section.
If we find IL is not necessary for station
| purposes. then IL cannot be Ia zen unless
Iii ~.
| has be,n held thlt the general aIthor-
| ity I" locate and construct a railroad
from me point H. another does not att
! thoriZe the taking Of property already dc-
voted t. railroad uses.
| n. Y. q Long Branch Il. L. ~. Drum
mond.
In one of the eases cited, the court
says: "A charter 10 build and MAINTAIN
a railroad. without describing its course
and direction, but leaving that to be de-
Itermincd and established By the corpora
ton, does not prima facie give any poW-
er to lay out the road over land already
devoted to and within the recorded To-
cation OF another railroad. r
Ii is not to be presumed that The Lef-
ltslature intended 10 allow land thuS de
voted 10 one public nse TO be subjected
10 another, unless the authority ~ given
cation can be found in the language of
the act. OF from the application Of the act
to the subject matter" .'
Housutonic X. X. Co. VS.. Hudson X, X.
Co, lis Mass, 39l
II has been held that The Legisla turc
may authorize one railroad to take the
property Of another. but this. must be
done by express words or by necessary
implica cion."
Eastern X. u. 90. vs.. Boston & Maine
r. r. Co, Ill Mass, 12a.
Prov. l. Worcester X. r. Co. VS.. Nor
Wich Il Worcester r. II. Co, les Mass.
.71.
| So that while the general rule Is that
one railroad corporation cannot take the
land of another railroad corporation, the
Legislature has the power to authorize II
| to be taken; and by Sect. III it seems to
have given such qualified authority. The
language IL peculiar 1t does not say thai
land occupied by a railroad company shall
not he taken. neither Is il implied thar il
shall not be taken when occupied for station
purposes. unless ii is necessary for such
station purposes.
The Legislature haa by this section
changed the common law rule that lands
occupied by railroad corporations shall
not be taken. and has delegated author
ity TO the railroad commissioners to de-
eide whether such land Is necessary for
station purposes. II so. then it cannot be
taken,
/ II the commissioners find that 1t Is not
can he taken If the commissioners also
find that public necessity requires 1t.
; This construction gives full force and
effect to each para graph, and establishes
a reason for the abtruse and peculiar
| Continued on page g.