The Illinois free trader and LaSalle County commercial advertiser. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1841-1843, 1843-06-30
OPINION.

OPINION.
have considered the force and effects
of the several statutes stated in the case,
and the questions arising thereon, and
am Of opinion
l.. That the state Of Illinois has a
clear and undoubted right to the Illinois
and Michigan canal, and to the lands over
which it is conducted. Tha, title is de-
rived from the act of congress of 1927,
and is made subject TO a qualification sta
ted in the act not essentially imparing its
value, and with the reservation of the
sections Of land OF each side of the canal
alternately selected by the United States
for their own use.
2. That the state has the right to
pledge and convey in trust, according to
the provisions of the act Of 1913, the ca
nal and the canal property granted by the
United States. The lands were granted
expressly subject 10 the disposal of the
legislature Of Illinois, for the purposes Of
the canal. The grant Of tho same pro-
perry to trustees to be created under the
act of lS43, is perfect and absolute, as a
grant in trust for the purpose of compile
ting the canal, and it legally as well as
equltably vests tho right, title and pos
session of the canal and the lands belong
ing to it in the trustees, for the purposes
of the trust.
3. That the legislature Of Illinois cam
not rightfully interfere with or impair the
trust, until the declared purposes Of it be
eflec,ually and truly fulfilled. The trust
property becomes private property, and
entitled 10 the protection of the courts of
justice, and herein this grant differs es-
sentially from all the securities provided
for the creditor by the prior statutes.
Thus the act Of January, 1896, pledg-
ed the faith of the state and the canal rev.
enues for the redemption of the debt TO
be created under that act But there was
no vested transfer of any funds. The
whole remand in the possession and
under the control of the state, and lis
duty to pay and redeem the pledge YES
ted entirely upon the moral obligation of
good faith, and in case of state exemp-
ted from legal coercion, that obligation is,
doubtless, to be regarded as of The most
imperative nature. The creditor, in case
OF default of payment. had no legal rem
edy Whatever, for the judicial power of
the United States does not extend to any
suit in law or equity against state by
citizens or subjects. The same observa-
zion will apply to the loans under the acts
of March and July 1887, and FEBRUARY
1896. They all equally rested on tie
faith and credit Of the state, and not on
specific security which could be reached
by the creditor on judicial process. In
the last &C, above mentioned the state did
indeed declare that it irrevocably pledged
as security for the loan, the canal, its rev.
enues, and the lands belonging to it, but
there was no transfer-no grautee--no
designated credi!or-no delivery of the
property to any individual or corporate
body.f The state retained the title, pos
session, control and disposition Of The
property in itself. 1t expressly in and
by the same act reserved the right TO sell
any part Of the lands SO pledged, and 10
apply the proceeds for canal purposes.
Whereas, on the other hand, by the act
Of lS43, after the trust is duly created and
the loans effected, the creditor can en-
force the execution Of the trus. as agans.
the trustees, and by process in rem on
she equity side Of The circui, court Of the