The lessee contended that part of
the contract which conferred a bene
fit on them was legal, and that part
which placed a burden or limitation
on their powers was unconstitu
tional. The Supreme Court of the
U. S. has held in several cases a
lessee or grantee could not do this,
land Mr. Justice Lumpkin and the
counsel carefully refrained
from discussing this question.
THE JEFFERSONIAN
As authority for this position see
Gano V. R. R. Co. 190 U. S. Dow
V. Electric Co., N. H. 31 Atl. 22,
112 Mass. 509., 58 N. H., 129. 166
U. S., 489.
Now, as a citizen of Georgia, I
have <|esired to know why this erro
neous decision was not appealed to
the United States Supreme Court
where it would hav ecertainly been
reversed and the rights of the peo
ple preserved. Did the railroad com
panies prevent this, and if so, how?
Why was Governor Brown so swift
to pronounce Justice Lumpkin’s de
cision against the people of the State
good law? I was told by an eminent
la-wyer the Governor said this.
This is probably true, ere this time
next year a campaign will begin for
the sale of the road. The argument
can then be urged that the reasons
for the State ownersnip of the W. &
A. has passed away. There are oth
er roads to the Tennessee river and
the West and that under the deci
sion of the Supreme Court of Geor
gia the State can’t control the
through rates on the road.
It behooves the people of the
State, whose inheritance the road
is to think over these matters care
fully.
