Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1853-09-09
Supreme court.-opinions on the Railroad
Subscription Injunction.

Supreme Court.--Opinions on the Railroad
Subscription Injunction.
The Supreme Court met at nine O'Clock yester-
Gay morning.
Present-Chief Justice Black, Justice Lewis,
Lowry. Woodward and Knox.
Opinions were read by all the Justices on the
application for all INJUNCTION to prevent sub
script onS TO the stock OF the Hempheld Railroad
and the Philadelphia, EaSton and Water Gap
Railroad by the City of Philadelphia, IN the case
William P. SharpleSS ct al VS. the Mayor, &C., of
Philadelphia. The cause was argued in Philadel-
phia al the last session Of the Supreme Court
Chief Justice Black, and Justices Woodward
and Knox opposed the injunction, and Justices
Lewis and Lowry took grounds i'll favor OF allow
GhiefJustice Black read lengthy and profound
opinion, of which the following is the conclu-
sion:
al will conclude with n Lrief recapitulaton Ct
the ptints and principles, which think will set
lie the cause.
/. In determining whether an Act Of the Leg
isature is constitutional or not, we must look 10
the body of the constitution itself for reasons
The general principles OF JUSTICE liberty and right
not contained or expressed in that instrument, are
no proper elements Of q judicial decision upon
il.
2. If such Act be written, the general grant
Of legislative power. that is ifit bein its charac-
Ter and essence a law, and if it be not forbidden
expEesssdy or implicitly either by The State or
Federal Constitution, is valid.
3. To make il void, it must be clearly not an
exercise of legislative authority; IT else be forbid
SO plainly, as to leave The case free from all
doubt.
A. An Act of Assembly authorizing subscr'p-
ton OF City 10 the stock of railroad corporation
is not forbidden by Art 1, Sec. 10 of the State
Constitution; that Section not being restriction
upon the legislative authority of the two houses,
but bestJwal Of privilege upon the separate
branches.
5. Such an act does not impair the Obligations
of any existing contracts, nor does 1t attempt the
impoSSibillty Of creating contract, butmerelyau-
thorize Two corporations IL make one if they shall
proper.
g. This is not such an injury 10 the plaintiffs
lands goods or persons, that they are entitled to
judicial remedy for it, agreeably TO Sec. IL OF Art.
TX Ii is no injury at all; except on the gratui-
tous assumption that it is forbidden in some 9TH
or part oil the Constitution. E.E@
7. 1t does not violate the right Of acquiring,
possessing and protecting property secured by Sec.
l. or Art. TX. The right OF property is not SO abb
solute, but that it may be taxed for the public
benefit
S: This is not taking ofprivate property for
puhlic use, without compensation contrary to
Sec. 10, of Art. TX. When property is not seized,
and directly appropriated to public use, though 1t
be subjected in the hands of the owner TO greater
burdens than it was before, it is not taken.
g. 1t cannot be said that the plaintiffs will be
deprived of their property, in violation OF Sec II,
Art. TX. The settled meaning OF the word de-
prive as there used, is the same as the word tGSe'
in Sec. 10.
10. An Act of Assembly. to authorize the ia
king of private property for pirate use, would be
unconstitutional, because 1t would not De legs
lation. but mere decree between private parties.
But this Is no taking in any sense, for any pur-
pose,s6r Tot any uses.
IL The Plaintiffs have no ground Of COM
pIaint against tie acts Of assembly now in qneS-
ton, except because they authorize the creation
OF public debt, Of which they may be required