United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/23rd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 28

←

United States Statutes at Large, Volume 4
United States Congress

Public Acts of the Twenty-Third Congress, Second Session, Chapter 28

→

3281427United States Statutes at Large, Volume 4 — Public Acts of the Twenty-Third Congress, Second Session, Chapter 28United States Congress

March 3, 1835.

Chap. XXVIII.—An Act supplementary to an act entitled “An act to authorize the extension, construction, and use of a lateral branch of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad into and within the District of Columbia,” passed December, eighteen hundred and twenty-nine.^[1]

1831, ch. 85.
Construction of road within the District of Columbia.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company be, and they are hereby, authorized to locate and construct their said road within the city of Washington, through squares nine hundred and nine, eight hundred and eighty-eight, eight hundred and fifty-eight, eight hundred and thirty-two, nine hundred and eight, eight hundred and eighty-seven, eight hundred and fifty-six, eight hundred and fifty-seven, eight hundred and thirty-one, eight hundred and seven, seven hundred and seventy-six, seven hundred and fifty-one, seven hundred and eighteen, in the same manner, and with the same rights and privileges which are granted to them by the act to which this is a supplement, for the construction of their said road within the District of Columbia, beyond the limits of the city of Washington, any thing in the said act contained to the contrary notwithstanding, and the assent of Congress is hereby given to the construction of the said railroad through or over any of the said lots or parts of lots which are owned by the United States.

Extension of road.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the main stem of the said railroad, after passing through the squares or lots above-named, or any of them, shall not be constructed west or south of a point at the intersection of H street north, with Delaware Avenue, until the route from that point to the final termination of the main stem of said road shall be surveyed and approved by the mayor, board of aldermen, and board of common council of the city of Washington; and when the said route shall be so surveyed and approved, the said company shall be, and they are hereby, authorized to construct the said railroad on the said route, under such restrictions and conditions as may be agreed upon by the said railroad company and the mayor, board of aldermen, and board of common council of the said city of Washington.

Road many pass through unimproved lots or squares.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if the said route from the intersection of H street and Delaware Avenue should pass through any unimproved lots or squares, except public reservations, the said railroad company shall be, and they are hereby, authorized to construct their road through or over the same, upon the same terms, and with the same privileges, as are prescribed for passing through the squares enumerated in the first section of this act.

Branches may be constructed.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the said company are further authorized to construct branches of their road from the main stem thereof, within the said city, to such place or places, and in such number of tracts, as the corporate authority of the city of Washington shall assent to or permit:Proviso. Provided, That the said branches shall not pass through any of the public reservations.

Company may obtain, hold, and improve lots.Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said company, and they are hereby empowered to obtain, by gift or purchase, any lot or lots adjacent to any street or avenue along which the said company shall construct their said road or branches, and to hold and improve the same in such manner as may be necessary for the purposes of said company, or for the beneficial use of said road, or the branches thereof; and the said company shall be authorized to extend and construct tracks of railway into any lot or lots so held by them, in connection with the tracks in any adjacent street or avenue:Proviso. Provided, That the free use of any street or avenue shall not be impaired thereby: And provided, also, That the said company shall not use or employ any steam engine in drawing or propelling the cars, wagons, or other vehicles, on any part of the said road within the city of Washington, except in such parts as may be agreed to by the corporate authorities of said city.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That such provisions of the act to which this is a supplement, as are inconsistent herewith, be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

Approved, March 3, 1835.

↑ The following decision of the Supreme Court is introduced, as it is one of the occasions in which the Baltimore and Ohio railroad has been the subject of the legislation of Congress.
The state of Maryland, in 1836, passed a law directing a subscription of three millions of dollars to be made to the capital stock of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, with the following proviso, “that if the said company shall not locate the said road in the manner provided in this act, then and in that case, they shall forfeit one million of dollars to the state of Maryland, for the use of Washington county.” In March, 1840, the state passed another act, repealing so much of the prior act as made it the duty of the company to construct the road by the route therein prescribed, remitting and releasing the penalty, and directing the discontinuance of any suit brought to recover the same. Held, that the proviso was a measure of state policy, which it had a right to change, if that policy was afterwards discovered to be erroneous; and neither the commissioners, nor the county, nor any one of its citizens, acquired any separate or private interest under it, which could be maintained in a court of justice. State of Maryland v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 3 Howard, 534.
It was a penalty, intended to be imposed on the company for disobeying the law; and the assent of the company to it, as a supplemental charter, was not sufficient to deprive it of the character of a penalty. Ibid.
A clause of forfeiture in a law is to be construed differently from a similar clause in an engagement between individuals. A legislature can impose it as a punishment; but individuals can only make it a matter of contract. Being a penalty, imposed by law, the legislature had a right to remit it. Ibid.

[1] The following decision of the Supreme Court is introduced, as it is one of the occasions in which the Baltimore and Ohio railroad has been the subject of the legislation of Congress.
The state of Maryland, in 1836, passed a law directing a subscription of three millions of dollars to be made to the capital stock of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, with the following proviso, “that if the said company shall not locate the said road in the manner provided in this act, then and in that case, they shall forfeit one million of dollars to the state of Maryland, for the use of Washington county.” In March, 1840, the state passed another act, repealing so much of the prior act as made it the duty of the company to construct the road by the route therein prescribed, remitting and releasing the penalty, and directing the discontinuance of any suit brought to recover the same. Held, that the proviso was a measure of state policy, which it had a right to change, if that policy was afterwards discovered to be erroneous; and neither the commissioners, nor the county, nor any one of its citizens, acquired any separate or private interest under it, which could be maintained in a court of justice. State of Maryland v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 3 Howard, 534.
It was a penalty, intended to be imposed on the company for disobeying the law; and the assent of the company to it, as a supplemental charter, was not sufficient to deprive it of the character of a penalty. Ibid.
A clause of forfeiture in a law is to be construed differently from a similar clause in an engagement between individuals. A legislature can impose it as a punishment; but individuals can only make it a matter of contract. Being a penalty, imposed by law, the legislature had a right to remit it. Ibid.

[1]