Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-06-28
pe,,,los DENIED.
CONTINUED from page 5.)

language of the section. 1t also serves to
make The seemingly coniiiciing para
swing each its appropriate effect. not us
Ing one paragraph to evade or abrogate
Collins vs. Chase. Il Me-. 43i
Hut the petitiOning company, through
Its counsel, claims that such a construc-
zion AZ We put upon Section III will pre-
vent I from fulfilling the implied ron n.
charter from the State, to connect its
tracks with the racks of the Sandy River
haiirdsd
that q charter from the state. when ae-
cepted BY company, Is contract which
II can neither ignore or violate. That
such company Is quasi public corpora
ton, which cannot escape the perform
ance OF its public duties. and. therefore.
that such force must be given to its char
yer as win enable il to perform these pub
This principle is familiar and funda
mental; and Is in accordance with reason
and decided cases.
railroad commissioners, the argument
was that the charter of the Lewiston,
Brunswick and Bath Street Railway. al.
though accepted by the company, and
with a portion of its road already con-
structed and operated. was only license
or permission to construct the remaining
portion; and that a railroad corporation
having Constructed a portion OF its line
was under no obligation whatever to con-
struct sucn remaining portion. and. sub
stantially, that by its own action. such
a corporation could as easily extinguish
its public duties as to such remaining
portion. as light can be extinguished by
the turning on a gas jet or the blowing
But We hold, then. and We now hold
that such corporation does not receive
its charter from the State for its own
benefit alone: that II does have public
iieve itsef Of those public duties BY is-
noring such provisions OF Its charter as
IT does not care to perform. or by the
more unreasonable and illegal method of
making a sale of its charter or any por-
ton Of it,. To another company;
We need not explore the legal debris OF
other Jurisdictions. and attempt TO recon-
Gle the differing decisions under the off
ferent statutes and constitutions of other
states. .
We cannot. however, refrain from cit
ing a recent case in Massachusetts,. where
a street railway company had construc ed
and was operating a portion OF ITS road.
Afterwards il arranged with construc-
ton company to construct branch up
on another street included in its fran
chtse- The construction company mao sot
the material upon the ground. had laid q
portion of the rails. but had no overhead
construction. when the street railway
company refused to carry out ITS con-
tract. voted TO stop work. and allow the
construction company to sell all The ma
terial TO anoli.er and rival company.
which was done; and the rival company
DOSSeSHl0H OI the street AlIS pui
pose of operating the railroad.
The supreme court. in passing upon the
legality OF suCh transaction. referred 10
il as an ''illeeaI scheme and used this
language
III In the minds of ibt movers Of the
corporations. the sale was the means OF
the abandonment of the road by one COM
pany. and its occupation or use by an
other. the law will not be blinded by the
character of the act. because they had
wit enough not to betray their scheme
Clemens Electrical Co. VS.. Walter Ia
Mass, go
And SO in the recently case of the
United States VS. Union Pacific Railway
Co. 100, t. S, l. IL Sup. CT. Pepr. ~;
where the supreme court OF the United
States holds in reference to the franchise
Of a telegraph company that it had no
power to transfer such franchise. since
Congress had the power to compel it to
MAINTAIN and operate telegraph iine over
and along its main line and branches.
But there are plain statutes IN our own
In brunswick Gas Light c.; United
Justice Walton. speaking for the court,
uses this language:
Corporations possessing and EXERCISING
the, right of eminent DONATE owe duties
to the public from the porormance o.
which they are not allowed TO escape by
a sale or lease Of their franchise with
out first obtaining the consent of the Leg
islature."
ut is now settled by an Overwhelming
weight OF authority that public or quasi
public corporations. which possess anu
exercise the right of eminent domain. or
its equivalent, owe duties to the public.
as we'll as to their stockholders; and that
they cannot sell or lease their corporate
powers and privileges. and. thereby. d's-
able themselves from performing their
public duties. without legislative author
fty- 1t Is duty Of gas companies. water
companies. electric light companies. tele-
graph and telephone companies. street
railway companies and all similar corpo-
ratiohs. which have obtained the right to
use the public streets for the erection or
extension of their works. to serve the
public faithfully and impartially, and at
reasonable rates. And this is duty the
performance OF which may be enforced
by the courts.
but still more serious objection to
the traffic in corporate franchises is the
case with which such power could be
used to create monopolies. BY it's exer-
else q single corpora ton could easily be-
come possessed of the corporate powers
and privileges of all its rivals, and there
by annihilate competition. and obtain
complete control Of the markets: Such
combinations are usually hurtful. and
sound policy require that they be kept
under legislative supervision and re-
straint-'
nations may be made by individuals. IT
has been aptly replied that men are NOR
tai. and their combinations short-liv
combinations and acquisitions may go on
forever; that all experience shows that
such arcummula tons of wealth and pow
er are dangerous TO the public welfare;
and that while society must endure the
accommodations and combina tons OF
mortals. which must end at the grave, II
cannot endure similar accumulationS
and combinations Of power by corpora
lions, which may continue forever.
In this decision. Peters, c. j.. Emery,
Foster ard Haskell. ]. j.. cOncurred.,
This language of our court seems to be
plain enough to satisfy the most feeble
Intellect; and yet there are those who
still marvel that the railroad commits
sioners should feel bound by these decis-
ions instead OF wandering of into the
maze of individual thought.
So that in giving construction to the
charter of the F.. S. 4 X. Railroad. and
in attempting to ascertain the meaning of
the Legislature in granting IT. we must
take into consideration all these statutes
and DECISIONS. and ascertain, II we can,
what were the powers and duties anu
oblig a TONS of the company when IT ac-
cepted its charter from the State.
As we cOpstrue the charter of the F..
s.. & K. X. r. Co. the company has
right 10 fix IT'S terminus al Fdrmington
at or near the terminal tracks,eof the
Maine Central Railroad Co.. and the
Sandy River X. n. Co.
IF uaa NOT cOnfiped IN any particular