|
|
|
|
|
|
|
756 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 9,
set of tracks, so as to be used and traveled on from the com-
mencement of it, as authorized by this Act, to the line of the
District of Columbia, within three years after the commence-
ment of the actual construction, the Legislature hereby re-
serve the right to incorporate another Company, or to
authorize any other persons, in their discretion, to lay out and
make a railway on and over any ground, and in any direc-
tion between the City of Baltimore and the District of Co-
lombia, anything in this Act, or any Act to which it is a
supplement, to the contrary notwithstanding."
What may be the legal interpretation of that clause or its
legal effect, we do not assume to determine. But here are
two most important facts, by the subsequent Act. viz :
That the Company must pay practically forty per cent, of
its net earnings from passenger traffic to the State, and the
express reservation of the right on the part of the State to
authorize another Company to build a road between the two
cities, only in case this Company should fail in the construc-
tion of the Branch within a definite period after its commence-
ment.
Is it not clear that there is at least an implied contract on
the part of the State, that this Company should have the ex-
clusive right of transportation between the two cities ? When
the State ceases to observe this contract, and charters a Com-
pany to build another practically parallel road, the active
competition of which largely diminishes those earnings,
should the State still demand one-fifth of the gross receipts
from passenger transportation—especially when such con-
tinued requirement produces results practically ruinous to
this important work ? Is it equitable for the State to pro-
mise, by clearly distinct implication, "You shall have an ex-
clusive right of transportation, and the State shall receive
one-fifth of your gross passenger earnings," and at a subse-
quent date, say "the State will no longer observe its implied
engagements, but will charter another road, diminish your
passenger traffic one-half, yet will still claim the one-fifth of
your gross passenger receipts ?"
While, therefore, the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad,
running also between Baltimore and Washington, the con-
struction of which was authorized by the State—is free from
this burden, it is only just that the Washington Branch
should be free from it. One-third of the Washington Branch
stock, viz: $560,000, is owned by the State, and it has,
therefore, an additional, important, direct interest as a
stockholder, in the proper and equitable adjustment of this
matter.
It seems proper, in this connection, that, as the statement
frequently appears that the Baltimore and Potomac Road is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
