companies, having invested large sums of money
in four of them—two upon the eastern margin,
and two upon the western side of the State. Her
money was embarked in all of these enterprizes,
and it behooved her, he thought, so far as their
supervision could reach, to protect the common
interest of the people of the State.
He wished to see such a rate of tolls adopted
as would bejust and fair towards the companies,
and towards the people who used that line of
communication, but he did not desire to see them
reduced any lower. As they now existed, he
doubted very much whether the treasury of the
State would receive any profit at all from some
of the works, while from others, they certainly
would. The western side of the State had a rail
road company and a canal company—were they
not in antagonistic positions? He did not think
any gentleman would deny that, on the Eastern
Shore of the State, the Tide-Water Canal and
the Susquehanna Rail Road were in exactly the
same position.
Mr, DAVIS. Will the gentleman say whether
such a state of things has produced evil results?
Mr. HOWARD replied that he would state a
little fact in order to show. (He did not wish to
mention the names of the gentlemen themselves;
the fact would be as good without it.) Some
eighteen months ago it happened that he had a
conversation with a gentleman who had taken a
deep interest in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Company, mingling largely in its affairs, and who
was not a resident of the State of Maryland—a
gentleman who was selected as a common um-
pire to decide some important questions necessa-
ry to the facilitation of a loan. That gentleman
mentioned to him that his opinion was that in
some three, four, or five years, after the Canal
should have been in operation to Cumberland,
the State of Maryland would be receiving a re-
venue of half a million of dollars a year from
it. That opinion surprised him (Mr. H.) very
much. He had every confidence then, and had
now, in the sagacity, intelligence, and clearhead-
edness of that gentleman, (whose name he did
not feel at liberty to mention, as this occurred in
a private conversation.) Within the last two
months he was applied to to permit this recom-
mendation to be used in the Baltimore City
Council to procure the construction of the Cross-
Cut Canal. He applied to the gentleman to in-
quire of him whether he would allow his name
to be used, and whether he still entertained the
same opinion. His remark was, that when he made
that observation, it was founded upon the belief
that the Company would charge a dollar per ton
on coal; but now the price had been put down
so low, that he did not know it would yield any
thing beyond expenses. He (Mr. H.) intended
this as a reply to the question of the gentleman
from Montgomery whether any evil had occurred
from this underbidding. He thought it was suf-
ficient proof that evil had occurred. He did not
intend to censure that Company, but the fact was
known that the Rail Road Company had reduced
their tolls. He wished to protect both of these
Companies. |
It was a fact that was known, that the rail
road company, in prospect of a contract being
made by the canal company, had reduced their
tolls, and on this fact, he was not mistaken. Both
of these companies were presided over by gentle-
men for whom he entertained the highest respect
and he would be the last person to cast on them
the slightest imputation or censure. But what
he had in view was, that all these companies
should he regulated by one central and common
power,
These tolls should bare a just proportion to the
expenses of making the canal or rail road —to the
expenses of working it—to the price of the arti-
cle in New York; as the gentleman from Mont-
gomery justly said, the price of an article in New
York regulated the price here. All these con-
siderations could be taken in view, and then a
pro rata arrangement fixed upon by this impar-
tial hoard one that would be fair and just,
It had been said, that the State could not ex-
ercise this control. The State already had the
control over two of the companies—the entire
and absolute control of the Chesapeake and Ohio
canal company, and the Susquehanna rail road
company.
The State appointed a majority of the direc-
tors in these companies, and thus could appoint
all the officers, and have the control of every
thing else. The other rail road company and the
tide water canal company were not beyond the
control of the State. He held that under the
general police power remaining in the State,
they had the right to see that no chartered com-
pany holding under their laws, inflicted injury
instead of benefit upon the community. The
State held this reserved police power in regard
to every chartered company, he did not care of
what kind.
The moment that a corporation become a nui-
sance and an injury, instead of being a benefit, he
contended that the State had a right to pass ne-
cessary laws to bring back that company into a
faithful performance of that duty. and if it should
refuse to obey, then the State had a right to pro-
ceed legally for the forfeiture of the charter.
He held this doctrine, which was not inconsis-
tent with the decisions of any tribunal in the
country. That power was analogous to the
right of eminent domain, the right of the State to
protect its people in the exercise of that police
power. He entertained, therefore, no doubt
that if this power should be thrown out, and any
one of these companies should be recusant in
their obligations, that then there would be a
dormant power in the Legislature, which could
bring them back. It would be miserable, indeed,
if these creatures of their own law, could run
riot all over the land, producing misery wherever
they went, and yet the State have no power to
prevent it.
He saw with great regret the danger that this
power might be used for political purposes. If
he knew in what way to avoid it, he would pur-
sue that way, but sincerely hoped that it
would not become the subject of party,
Mr. DAVIS said that the gentleman had spoken |
