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

over a tasaeses, sd ~ seploy.sot q
uch extsineic aeso1os - may 30 nsosssary
o ,eatvy toward ~ undertaking, or s6e
nav do it in6lrectl1, through the inseru.
ueotaljty Of epuatiea, cities, or even private
,oeporssSoos-ehas Mshs adopts this latter
,ourse, IL involves NO other principle then
tho choice Of means, which abe he's . riehe
10 make. Again, that II the State could
10 the whole work herself shs en- Do .
part and that this iocludes The right to
.elsee the method Of affecting che sane.
That II she could aid private corporations
to build railwsys, the use Of which 10 pub
lie, by the right Of eminent domain, 70 she
may BY the power Of taxation; and this
latter power abe may lawfully tsanaees to
her sob divisions % 30 used ~ then for
the same end. That the right OF eminent
domain and taxation, attaches % On Incl.
dent to the power Of the Government;
that ioasmuch - the former may b right.
fully exercised in granting the righs d
way to private corporations, in construct.
ing railways, IL carries With i the right to
employ the latter power Ia aid Of such en-
il the legisla ture can create
. debt and lay taxes On the whole people
for work Of general interest, it may with
equal propriety allow the people Of . pr.
ticular county TO tar themselves to promote
in similar manner public work In which
they have special interest-thst The mat
ter Of authorizing counties to take stock in
railway companies may be, is 10 true, IN
unwise and inexpedient policy, liable 70
very great abusss, still Il does not fall
within any Of the prohibitory clauses Of
tho Constitution, and therefore IL must,
like oil other improvident legislation. 6ud
its corrective IN tho action Of the General
Assembly, and not IN the DEGREES Of the
court.
The foregoing really is the substance Of
the argument, - We have been able to col.
late aud condense the same from the dit.
ferent adjudications made use Of to aus.
tain the validity Of IN act Of the Legisla-
ture empowering municipal corporations to
That the reasons on which the argument
is founded are exceedingly plausible, none
can very we'll deny; that they are not, how.
ever, exhaustive Of the argument - appli-
cable to the laws and Constitution Of the
State, We must insist. Tho question 10 not
whether the State may not lawfully con.
struct and maintain BY herself Or through
her subdivisions, . system Of public rosds
including railways; nor whether she may
not, 10 accomplishing this legitimate object,
levy . tai upon her citizens nor whether
she may not even aid private corporations
- . chain Of means to IN end in eaecting
the same object. All this may b concs-
ded; nevertheless this Obligation Of the
State in this aspect Of the question Is made
the chief predicate Of the above argument,
o We understand it, whereas it 10 only the
incident, which seems TO have been illOgic'
ally exalted above the principal question IL
controversy. The complaint u not that
the object is unlawful, or Unconstitutional
but that the method Of obtaining the Oh
ject is. Tho rights Of citizen may be y
injuriously affected BY the unlawful chafac
ter Of the means employed 20 acco0plish
given object lawful in itself. To ilios'
trate: The Legislature has the power q
alter and change tho Law Of tho remedy
but in exercising this power it must adop
| . constitutional mode, and it cannot do II
in . manner (as has frequently been ct
tempted) to impair tho obligation OF con
tracts, otherwise the Law TO that extern
would be nullity. So, to tax citizen y
keep up system Of highways in his couu
mon with oil the other citizens Of th'
county, the payment Of which involves hiu
in no contract obligations, aud 10 iollowet
with no future liabilities or personal annoy
ances, 10 ono thing, while the levy Of. co
creed contributions ostensibly for simila
purpose, but in such manner % not TO Civ
him or the public an unrestrained use o
the way in the construction Of which money
was expended, yet which nevertheless hA
the inevitable effect to change bic bushes
relations, fix upon him the obligations
contract % we'll % the responsibility Of
carrier, is altogether very different ching
We have already demonstrated tho prsc
tical effect which municipal railroad sut
scr'ption has upon the individual rights Z
the citizens Of such municipslitiss in th
State. II We are correct In our statemen
Of tuis effect and the conclusions draw
therefrom, We cannot but think they cou
stitute . decisive answer TO the argumen
upon which We are commenting. Thse q
gument, in the condensed form 10 which y
present it, seems, it ID true, to overlook Obi
aspect Of the case, and il 10 poss;ble ths
the same consequences do not flow from
county becoming stock holder In privat
railway company, - It respects tho right
and liabilities Of the citizen tax payer, ]
those States . it does in this State. A
though some of the courts have intimate
the possibility Of such being tho result, IN
deprecated the exercise Of this power I
dangerous and extraordinary.
Believing that we have exhibited Q psil
| ciple underlying this power, which prscti'
ally overturns one Of the reserved and fur
dasnental rights Of the citizen, that Of N,
king bis own contracts, choosing bic on
business pursuits and managing biz proper
~ and means in bic own way, and wbicl
under the Constitution Of this State, tov
ever Il may Be elsewhere, entities to d
Intervention and protection Of the court
We are willing to risk the consequences Z,
sultiDg from the exercise OF such pove
. furnishing sufficient answer in itself [
oil the reasons which have been or may [
assigned IN favor of its exercise.
II any will take the trouble, especially
those who believe tho Law 70 possess Il
dignity Of science aud holds IN exalee
rank in the empire Of reason, 70 snslyz
this question with references % the prime
Piles sud theory u our own political osgss
izatioo, he viii discover thst u does impl
cate right, which, in importance, u sboy
oil or any interest connected with The bus
ness relation Or the physical iopeovsmeal
Of the county.