Daily national Democrat., 1859-05-01

! good, and such powers are subject to the con-
troll of the Legislature of the State. 1t sums
up the argument on this general subject by
saying " The Constitution of the State autho-
rizes the Legislature to create corporations,
and imposes no limit as to the powers to be
conferred on them, no clause confning their
action to objects entirely disconnected with
anything outside the corporate limits"
In Grant V. Courier, GA Barb. 233) the
subject is elaborately treated The question
there, was MS to the validity Of a statute Of
New York empowering the towns in the
counties through which the Albany and Sus
quehanna railroad is located and in progress
of construction, to borrow money and sub
scribe for and purchase the stock of the com.
pany. After giving the general course of
reasoning adopted in the Indiana case, the
Court say The Act, consequently, is not
repugnant to the provisions Of the State Con.
stltuton above referred to, nor is it without
the general grant of legislative power. The
precise question at ISSUE AS to the power Of
the Legislature to authorize towns, cities and
1 counties to subscribe for rair Dad, turnpike
road or bridge stocks, has been decided re
peatedlv in various States of the Union, and
the final decision in each of them, has upheld
the law as constitutional The Constitutions
of several of these States contain similar pro-
visions for the protection of private property
to those above alluded to. The only case in
contradistinction to which we have referred.
is that of Clark v The City of colchester, (l3
How. Pr r. 204) decided at special term, and
in which Judge Allen in his able opinion,
rests his decision in part upon other grounds,
to which allusion will hereafter he made J
(Sharpless V. Mayor of Philadelphia, 81 Penn
r., l47; Commonwealth V. McWilliams, II
4 -
missioner of Clinton county 2l Ohio r., II;
Cass v Dillon, % i'd, COZ: Talbot V. Dent, Q
b. Mon. r. 526; Slack V. The Mavville r.. r.
Co. l3 i'd, /; Nicol v. Mayor of Nashville, 0
Humphrey, 252; Rider v Alton r. r. Co.,
l3 Illinois r. 5l6 Shaw v Deunis, > Gilman,
405; City of Bridgeport V. lIousatonic II. r.
Co, Is Conn r. 475; Goddin v Cramp s
Leigh, 100; Harrison Justices V. Holland
Grattan, 247; Taylor '. Commissioners of
Newborn, Jones, Ill See also, Thomas V.
Leland. 81 Wend. 65; People V. Mayor of
Brooklyn, Const 4l9; White V. The Syra-
cuse and Utica r. Co., ii Barb 559)"
The Court consider, in the point made
that the fact that the Act was not to take
effect except after vote of two thirds of the
electors, was unconstitutional as limitation
upon legislative power, and hold that there
is nothing in 1.-THE legislative act being
complete when exercised, and the effect of the
Act OILY controlled by the condition. The
same thing is held in 2l Penn, l89; ; u Ohio
II.
The case of Benson vs.. Mayor of Albany
involved the same question and was decided
the same way. (24 Barb, 253) The Con-
sitution of New York contains clause sim
liar to our own in regard to municipal corpo-
rations, directing the Legislature to restrict
| tIa Of rn,tuioi,No1 70
assess borrow money, contract debts, etc
But this provision was considered as not in
terfering with their power to subscribe for
stock, tax, etc.
Many more cases might be cited. But is
unnecessary. The decisions, with a single
exeeption-and that case overruled-seem to
be all one way.
With the policy of such laws, as the Courts
of Indiana and New York remark, we have
nothing to do. Our duty is to declare the
law as we find it,
The result of all the cases is, that the Leg
islature has right to authorize a local tax
for the purpose of internal improvements :;
that it may authorize the local authorities to
impose the tax; that this may be done upon
| petition or without it, or in case of vote for
! the proposition, and that it is not essential
that the improvement should be within or
confined to the locality taxed, and that a
subscri tion for stock TO be paid for by taxa
ZION, is a valid contract to pay it.
This leaves but one question open; and
Ve think there is nothing in it requiring ex
| tended notice 1t has been seen that the
Act allows the subscription to be made to the
clptal stock Of any company "lor the pur
pose of constructing any railroad, by which
railroad connection shall be formed be-
tween the city of Marysvile and the city of
Benicia, or any point on the Sacramento
River" The committee appointed must de
eide whether this road is proper one to eff
feet their liect We do not question that it
answers the end intended, and that sub
-cription to it would give effect to the intent
of the Act of the Legislature. The error of
the appellants argument is in supposing that
the subscription is to he to a railroad compa-
ny formed for the express and only purpose
of connecting Marysyille and one of these
teymiHi; whereas the truth is, the subscrip-
tiou is to any railroad by which railway
connection shall be formed between Marys-
vile and one ofthese points. The company
receiving the subscription need not he constr
tuted for this express and only purpose; but
the effect of their work must be to make this
connection The road Of this company com.
mences at point in the city Of Marysville,
and continues on from thence, through the
county of Sutter, to point on the Sacramen-
to River at Knights Ferry, forming a rail-
road connection between the city of Marys-
vile and the Sacramento River, at Knights
Ferry That the railroad is continued furth-
er, or the work goes beyond this in any 9th
er respect, is no objection, rs it completely
answers the description in the Act, SO far as
the description goes,and the statute designed.
TIL. u.lfru,aut Is of offirtna1 RnnU-rN
concur TERRY, q. j.
BRANCH TURNPIKE Co. V. SUPERVISORS OF