WESTERN UNION TELEGEAPH CO. V. U. P. BT. CO. 9 �Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico now owned or controUed, or that may hereafter be owned or controUed, by the West- ern Union Telegraph Company: provided, as far as said lines in Colorado or New Mexico are concerned, the said road or roads of the Union Pacific Eailway Company, Eastern Division, shall at the time be in process of construction towards Santa Fe, or Denver, or both ; and ail such business Bhall be transmtted free of charge over ail other lines owned or controUed, or that may hereafter be owned or controUed, by the said telegraph company, within the United States, to an amount not exceeding the rate of $4,000 per annum, and for any excess above such rate the telegraph company will deduct and abate one-half the regular tariff charges — settlements and payments for such excess to be made yearly." �That this provision of the contract is against public policy and therefore void,is, to my mind, entirely clear. It amounts to an agreement to give to each of the officers of the com- pany who made the contract, and to each of their successors who should maintain it, a valuable consideration for his oiîBcial action in that behalf ; a consideration of a private and Personal character, enuring to the officers' private benefit and gain, and not to the benefit of the company or other stockholders. It is said, however, that this feature of the contract may be eliminated, and that the remainder may stand and be enforced. It is true that the policy of the law is to effectuate rather than defeat a contract, and to this end parts or provisions which are comparatively unimportant, and which may be severed from the contract without impairing its effect or changing its character, will sometimes be Bup- pressed. 2 Parsons, Con. 505. �But the clause above quoted cannot be set aside as unimpor- tant. It constituted, to say the least, one of the considerations on which the contract was made, and it is well settled that "if the contract be made on several considerations, one of affaich is illegal, the whole contract is void, and that whether the illegality be at common law or by statute." Chitty on Contracts, (8th Am. Ed.) 572. An agreement to givie to an ����
