Year: 1873

mcrs OF the State under grieyous tribute;
and the following language is used by Judge
Lawrence; "A railroad company, although
| permitted TO establish its rates of COmpenSa-
ton, must do so without injurious discrimi-
nations as to individuals 1t must deal fairly
by the public, and this il would not be doing
if allowed so to discriminate as to build up
the business of one person to the injury OF
another in the same trade"


Here is an express declaration that these
corporations cannot be permitted so to dis
criminate in their charges rs to favor one to
the injury of another The enforcement of
such principle would not be very favorable
to the growth of monopolies!


In the case of the Chicago & Northwestern
Railway Company VS.. The People, SO III. 365,
319, Judge Lawrence, in the opinion, said;
" But railway companies may now be regard
ed as under II higher obligation, if that were
possible, than that imposed by the common
law, to discharge their duties to the public, as
The State has endowed them with something
OF its own sovereignty in giving them the
right OF eminent domain. BY virtue of this
power they take the lands of the citizen
against his will and can, if need be, demolish
his house is 1t supposed these great powers
were granted merely for the private gain of
the corporators? On the contrary, we all
know the companies were created for the
public good IT, then, common carrier, at
common law, came under obligations to the
public from which he could not discharge
himself, at his own voltion, still less should
Il railway company be permitted to do so,
when it was created for the public benefit, and
has received from the public such extraord-
nary privileges"


The principle is distinctly announced that
railway companies were created for the pub
lie good, and endowed with portion of the
sovereignty of the State, and that they are
under obligations and owe duties to the pub
lie which they must discharge for the good Of
the public


In this case contract between the railway
company and certain elevators in the city of
Chicago, not to deliver grain in bulk to any
of the elevators in the city not embraced in
the contract, was pronounced absolutely void,
as against public policy.


IL cannot be supposed that man who has
announced such opinions would incline to
sanction any violation of duty on the part OF
these corporations. Such conclusion is not
possible in regard to Judge Lawrence, who
in 1868, in the Vincent case, prior to the adop-
tion of the present constitution, awarded an
injunction to restrain the Chicago ~ Alton
Railway Company from the delivery Of grain
to any other warehouse than the one to which
the grain had been consigned


Again in 1870, with his associates upon the
Bench, he directed the summary writ of man
damus to compel the Chicago & Northwest
ern Railway Company to deliver grain to
particular elevator, to which it had refused to
deliver it, and declared that the Company
could not select the consignee to the injury
of the shipper.


Judge Lawrence's sympathies are with the
Right. His sound judgment has been i'm
proved by experience. His extensive legal
information, when he came upon the Bench,
has been largely increased by constant study
and laborious research. His desire is to pro-
tect all men and all interests. With every
opportunity of forming Il correct judgment,
know he is honest, capable and faithful.


For the good of the State, the honor of the
judiciary and the security Of a just admins
tration of the law, trust that the voters of
the Fifth District will return him to place
which he has SO long adorned.


ANTHONY THORNTON


SuELBYvILLE, May IA, 1878