Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1862-06-25

y 4
kion, 10, that Il was in consequsnlp Of N
lct ii the Legislators, sonferring - power
On tho county Of Wapello 70 subsosibe, I'm
her municipal capacity, stock in . seailreed
Dompaoy. Nothing eau- be sosesse 20 the I
mind Of the writer Of this opinion than that
the exercise Of this power, and freedom IN
the choice Of pursuits, cannot stand togeeh.
er. II such . Law can be upheld - right
ful exercise Of legislative power, then the
reserved rights Of the citizen, - veil - tho
guarantees Of the Constitution aie oil .
myth.
That the legislature could pass . Law
which would compel each property holder |
in the county TO take one Or more shares v
. railroad company, none will pretend.
Why7 Because such : Law would strike
nos only q the principal Of psop.rsy, bet
would b wholly unjassihanle
conseraint over the minds Of men 10 the
choice Of their business pursuits. Yet be-
tween such law, and the one we sre die.
cussiug, there 10 no difference in their prsc-
tica! effect. For, under either law they
are alike made parties to contract against
their will, embarked in business not Of
their own choosing. required to pay, per.
hans. about the same amount Of money ~
capital stock, and subject to the same lia-
bilities - carriers.
L there 10 any difference, the law We are
considering is the more objectional Of the
two for the citizen who Is implicated =
Quasi member in the operations Of pri-
vats joint stock company, through
some mystical relation which he sustains TO
the country rs . body polite, he he's no
personal control or voice in tho manage
met Of the business of the company, whilst
his responsibility for mismansgement is or
NAV be personal. Not only 70, but should
be grow weary Of the enterprise, and would
fam dissolve his connection herewith, be
cannot sell out Is could an individual st0ck
holder, nor buy himself of, nor give away
his interest in the concern in order to avoid
further responsibility. His only alterna.
tive to effect such IN object, Is to abdicate
his home, sell bis property, and remove from
the county.
Now Ne desire to ask upon what princi-
pie this legislative interference with the
business pursuits Of men can be justified.
We are told that county and city rail.
road subscriptions have been upheld Is W .
id BY the courts of oil the States where the
question of their validity has been raised.
Granting this to be true, yet these deci.
sions have been made in many instances BY
divided courts, and they have failed to com
rose the doubts Of multitudes Of profession
al and unprofessional men who effect TO
believe that they are at war with natural
justice.
Again We do not feel At liberty to adopt
these adiudications uncballenged, for the
reasons that they have oil been made with
special reference to the s, atutory and con.
stitutional law Of their respective localities.
| This prudence we feel bound to initiate /;
for it is possible they may be right, and still
the 'exerciseiof the power under the laws and
Constitution of this State, be wholly unau.
thorized. Nevertheless, We wish u look .
little into the foundation Of this power - it
has been presented by number Of the
courts, as we'll As some Of the more promi-
nent grounds upon which it exercises ito
predicsted and justified.
First. It is claimed that the General
Assembly Of State possesses oil legisla.
tive authority not delegated to the General
Government, or prohibited by its own Con-
stitution-that the bill Of rights, % enum.
Grated in the Constitution, must be referred
to % the basis Of judicial decision-that II
is not in the power Of the court to enlarge
this list Of rights-that such extension
would involve On alteration Of the instru.
ment-that il the court can add to the re-
served rights Of the peopl they can also
take them away-that outside Of the rights
enumerated in the Constitution lies vast
field of power, not reserved, prohibited, or
given away, over which the legislature has
full and uncontrolled sway-that their use
Of this power is only confined BY their dis.
erection, and not the subject Of judicial an.
imadversion.
This argument is based upon the idea thai
inasmuch - the Constitution withdraw
from legislative interference . certain speci
fled list Of rights, without any allusion to
or recognition Of, other reserved rights
that therefore these others, il any ther'
may be, are not within the protection o
the courts, but must be redressed, If abused
by arguments addressed to the legislator,
ITSELF and not to the courts.
The soundncss Of this Interpretation of ,
Constitution framed in the manner suggest
cd in the argument, need not be denied Of
} affirmed by Us, for the reason that We n s
view this question Of legislative power frou
the stand. point Of our own State Constitu
ton.
The Constitution Of Iowa seems to hav,
} been written upon entirely different the
} DRY, and utters quite another language, tn
words Of which must furnish the only cri
terion by which We are to determine th
; righttul exercise Of = given power. Th
} first article OF our Constitution contains q
} enumeration Of certain Fundamental rights
but il also contains positive negation o
, the presumption that this specified list ex
cludes the existence of others, for the las
section Of this article declares that thi
enumeration Of riyAts shall not be coastruel
to impair or deny Others, retained BY II
people,"
Tho object Of this saving clause, We sup
pose, was to guard not only against th'
above construction given TO bills Of righ
not containing any such reservations, bu
to bring these unenumersted rights retsinet
by the people, founded equally, it may be
upon natural justice and common reason, q
; those that arc specified, within the censor
} ship of courts Of justice, whenever thel
shall be af-ailed. What other tribunal Il
the Government can be invoked 70 cheek
|. mate such IN abuse of unauthorized power
Our bill Of rights allows the taking Of pr,
} vate property for public use upon making
compensation therefor, but it does not pro.
hibit in terms the taking Of private proper
~ for privste use. II this should s. don,
~ q oct Of the legislature sgainst 81
protestasioos Of The owner, woald 10 notb>
a. fragrant % abuse Of legislative ssGhosi
~, = would the taking Of private property
for public use without compsnaatioo2 ,m
j The latter, il is true, is expressly exeep-
, ted from the general powers Of tho Iegisla.
J ture, but ought not the former 70 find equa
. | snoo s,ssxr artinn ponnuuf1o<o n