The Savannah morning news., 1901-08-15
WINS IN MACON CASE.
central Railway Thus Far Ahead In
Trtni Before Judge Speer.

T"A hhliWny Thus Far Ahead in
Trial Before Judge Speer.
Judge Emory Speer of the United
states Court has rendered his opinion
In the case of the railway terminals at
Macon in which the Central of Geor-
sla' on the one hand, and the City of
Macon and the Macon, Dublin and Sa-
Vannah Railway, on the other, are the
dlsputants. After stating the case. the
judge decides in favor of the Central.
ordering the temporary injunction
made permanent until the final hear
ing, when the question Of title to the
property may be settled Judge Speer's
opinion. which is lengthy, includes the
following:
For the purpose of this hearing. the
court does not deem it necessary or
proper to make inquiry beyond this:
Has the Mayor and Council of the city
of Macon, because of it's conduct de-
scrlbed in the bill and proven in the
evidence, violated a right of the COM
plalnant secured to ii by the provision
above quoted from the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States?' 1t is incontestable that
the Cetnral of Georgia Railway Com
pany, and its predecessors in such til
tie, as 1t has, has been long in the law
fully acquired possession of the termi-
nal properties in dispute, and which
had been originally granted from the
public domain of the city of Macon.
1t is equally incontestable that it was,
at the time of the occurrence, denounc-
ed by the complainant's bill, in posses
sion under claim of right. Such pos
session and such claim of right, wheth-
er fully sustainable upon legal grounds
or not, constitute property, rights of
which the complainant cannot be de-
prived as long as it chooses to main
tain them, save by the customary jul
dicial proceedings; in other words, by
due process of law
Thus the Central of Georgia Rail-
way Company is deprived of properties
to which it claims title; properties long
in its occupancy and control, and in
the occupancy and control of it's prede-
cessors, and is as clearly deducible
from the foregoing, deprived of this
property without due process of law.
In it's controversies with another par
ty, which involve property rights of
this general character, the city of Ma
con, IN contemplation OF law, mas the
right of its own motion to exercise no
more power than would private in
dividual claiming title to land pos
sessed under claim of right by an
other. If A should grant to B lot
of land upon certain conditions def
nitely set out in the deed; if B was al
lowed to take and. hold possession I'M
der claim of right, and If a controversy
should arise between A and B as to
whether the conditions had been COM
piled with, and whether AS forfeiture
for a failure to comply had resulted,
A would have no authority to declare
that B had forfeited the land. His de-
claration to that end, like the reso-
luton of the Mayor and Council of the
city of Macon here, would be mere
brutum fulmen. He would have less
right to go in upon the lands, and with
force and arms, throw out and take
possession himself. No civilized COM
munity could long survive if such
methods on the part of its citizens or
subjects were tolerated. Each man
would be judge in hts own case. Not
only would he be Judge, but he would
also be executioner to carry his con-
clusion into effectiveness.