, 1865-02-05
the, HORSE RAILWAY BILL.
VETO MESSAGE OF TEE
G0FEKzNDR.
1 FcHEEEIL iRCC.IEST lCz1XST TIE
sNlNDLE.

iSpec1al Dispatch to the Chicago Tribrue1
sPh1sGEHD. Thursday, Feb. !, 1866.
TO Me MnoTgIe House Of Eepreseatoti1es Of
The State Of Nlinois:
The ill for an set concerning horse railways in
the city Of Chicago, passed By the General Asscm-
tly OF the State Of Illinois, and presented to me
for approval, Is most respectfully returned to the
House OF Representatives, in which House It
originated. In stating my objections to the bill
l may IN great Difference to the General Assembly
frcm whom feel 1t my duty to differ, DO allowed
to say, 1t would hare been fur more ccnsonapt
to uE feelings to have found myself abio to have
arrived al the same conclusion ut which your
honorable body dsd in considering and passing
upon it. Standing alouc in the magfstracy Of the
powers of one OF the great departments Of your
State, have hesitatcd for long time before yea.
turing to oppose the conclusions Of mr. own mind
to5our deliberations; and in the act Of doing 50
am strengthened md encouraged By the wise
and hberal por1sions OF our Constitution, guard
ing and protecting the rights Of the public and
the individual IN subJccting to review and reversal
my action OF mine hy majority OF the members
elected 10 the Legislature.
Its first section 1t extends 1hc franchise
vested " the tiret section Of the acts Of Feb.
II s sEs fse Sesis e. % ,usblR t. Rfea ID
extended ls one granted to certain railway com.
pany Ct said city. It appears By reference 10 the
uC{E. that
The Cummou Council Of the city Of Chicago had.
By ordinance dated August 10th, 1858, vested IN
certain 1ndiTidaals the night to construct and ope-
CITY, for The term OF twenty live YEAR. md by the
ninth section Of such ordinance 1t was provided
thst II the said individuals should becou1c incor-
s. uat ordinance should extend 70 such corpoTa- .
ton. for the tiMe md upon the conditions therein
prescribed; The said individuals were incorpo-
Inten BY the said act Of Feb. 1sth, 1859, and he
Enid corpo1 aion in the exercise Of Its franchise,
YES c-pises]y made eutjaet to tho ea1d contracts
and conditions contained IN the enid ordnance Of
sections Of eaid ordfnnnces, It wa. provided that
ar the expiration Of twenty five years tAc sid
city Of Chlcrgo should have the right to purchase
IN appraised valae In tic manner therein s3cci.
fed. The manifest effect Of the provision Of the
act noW under consideration extending the dura-
ninety nlne years also 10 extend ihe time whcn
this aErce1ncnt Of purchase and sale shsll take
eject Tor The lfkc period. Upon any fair Gun
.trnct,on Of ,he ac It 9eema hardly susceptbl o1
claimed for 1t, b. II construction, which has been
suggested, were to be admitted, that the right of
ht feeaFed % y The sad only
franchise for the further term Of seventy. -four
o e snc
property at the end OF the twenty-five Tcars. It
secIns sufficiently clear that the intent ind
S9ess g t. ea he ez It eR aSe ens f
prorerty TO be purchased was railway property In
condition for beneficial use, and not Hight 10
p as from s r$
this naF be . reason why the City Council fixed
me unit OF twenty five years IN the contract with
have able to tEe 81 o arat seson " a.
act, altSr hearing full discussion bT able Legal
gsn..tmed1 d On bo,h fIaes It seems e nc that dc
pair The obligation uf The contract Of purchase h.
tween Tug city II Chicago mud the Chicago City
hailT1y C95panSy r. 70 s9y HAT ,he extension Il
night to purchase The property Irom twanty-nyc
re: rs 10 niaety nl1e years Is material alteration
Of the con,ruct, is almost equal to declaring the
contract nullfty. That the contract Is thus i'm
paired between tie city and the corporation can
not reasonably ocrnit Of question, and we're It a
case betrccn individuals Or two private corpora
tious 1fs uneonst1tutonality would be apparent to
Whether tho fact tbat tho contract is entered
into on The one part 1>yA mere municipal corpo-
rnsion which it 1nay be insisted is hero represent
cd by the Legislasure having paramount control
Of the municipality takes away the constitutional
objection, may be mattcr OF craTe question; the
property interest Of great value and importance
10 the city. It IA q right which formed part at
least Of tue very consideration nl tue original
a way Company md It mi, ND we veil 5e Supposed tat
the length or the term for which these exclusive
privileges we're to be granted was matter OF the
lAlItEt [QuklAElAAOA IQE lut 4EE4hlA4AAC AVH
to interfere and without the consent Of tho city OF
Chicago to extend tho time when the agreement
Of said contracts are tu be performed won1l, in
my Judgment, be maniees.ly to impair that con-
tract in one Of its most material provisions.
Wtrc thfs objection to the doubtful conshtu-
iopaIly Of this provision OF tho bill the only one
II might W1lh propriety be referred to the judicial
tribunals for determination, aud we're the net ons
involving public law, or any interest Of great
rullic concern, should feel more hesitation in
IL owing this objection to Influence my action
upon 4 lii which had received tho sanction Of Il
!nr=e mcjori'y OF ths Legislature; bat cannot BE-
blind 10 the consideration, that t1c effect Of tho
bill ul:4tr consideration is to coufes Upon pyi-
satc corporation, franchises which are claimed 10
he of very g1cat value without consideration: that
peu1ols, signed hy q larec number Of the citizens
o. ShicIgo, have been presented to me,
Which s,a: has been passed without their
Gt thnt Of their Corporate anthoritics; and
aai AZ; Il xtends the fnnch1ac for this lung peod,
tc1,n Ecarn IN adysnce Of the expiration OF the
3e1m already vested In this corporation; nor can
insorty altogether disregarl he considerations
Me.Eu upon my Attention by those who repre-
ssnt he inttres' Of Chicago opposed to ibis lit
fhat iselt!ation extcdlpc ftanchise OF this Dc.
etltpticD Tor 70 long term, Is euhiect TO rrayc
objections. charter ofthi4 Find L very r. digsr Sig