, 1869-08-17

ing tho validity Of the acts Of the Lests-
ltuYc.
The main point made wns that ~ the
State Of uinoia never had proprietary in
teEea in the land it could not grant 1t to
the rn3lways; nor could the Legislature,
conceaing the utmost power in that body
over municipal corporation created by it,
compel the city ,uf Chicago 10 deed this
property to tho railroad companies, when
the grant to the city devoted the Land e1-
cluEive!y to specified purpose. This
question was very ably discussed Ivy the
counsel for the several parties, and Judge
Drunmond postponed decision in order to
enable the production Of authorities upon
two questions, VIZ:
~. Whether there Was = dedication for special
putlnse. and whether. II there was, It can be d.
seEed from thar purpose Z Wncthcr, In case
ttn ass sesn diversion The oreua! proprietor
ine t0tcd btnte} could Intervene. hy bill 10 rr,-
ttctthc nights Of the public or OF private indiyid-
ualt, Us the casc might bc ~
This nnrTowB tie inquiry very 1nuch
Upon this satject Of Legislative uuthority
over municipal corporations there is
CHIN put forward by many courts whicl,
rtlnces the latter to the 1nercst puppct~
imaginable. The charters of municipal
corporations are not contracis, and may br
changed at the will Of tho Legislature. In
the Dartmouth Co1Iego c!,se the Snpromc
Court denied the power Of the Legislature
to seize tho 1roperty donated to munich
pal cooperation and to appropriate it to
othrr Nses, ngainst the will Of the donor
and the donsc. In TINT case Judge Story
hAid: ''Ihe goTern1ueut has no powcr to
revoke Grnnt, even OF its own fnntls,
Wien given To private person or corpora.
uun for special uses. 1t cannot rec Ill it,,
Owl cntl"wncssts, granted to my hospit d
Or college, or city or town, for tho use Of
such corporations"
Another judge, in tho samo case, sId /:
- In respect TO public corporations which
exist only for public purposes, such ns townR,
cities, DC, tho Legislature 1nay, un1cr
proper limitations, chAnge, modify, en-
large or rest1nn them, securing, however,
TIC property for the use If those for
wh"m and nj whoso expense it WALL pur-
chasod" The duly md the power Of tue
Legislature with respect To the property Of
municipal corporations is not to destroy it,
but to protect it, and to provide that it shall
lie used for tho purposes for which it WIS
obtained The Legislature muy repeal the
municipal chaster md thus c1tingni@h the
corporation; but even lu Huch an extreme
case its power over the property Of the
corporation is "suhject to the restriction
thnt il must not be diverted to use sub
stantialIy different from that for which it
vas acquired" (Cobley's ConAt. Law, e3s,
The pzimary question suggested by Judge
Drumnlond Is, whether, if this land was
donated for 4 special purpose, it
can be Diverted from .hat purpose.
Upon the decision of that point in
the negative, there will be q virtual
onnulment Of the grant by the Legislature,
unless, indeed, that the original purpose
being for park or common, the sale of it
and the application Of its proceeds to the
purchase IF another and larger park, may
he considered properly and eqlaitably as
substantially within the original use for
which the land was acquired. II, however,
the sale Of these two blocks Of land in the |
city, which, in the Judgment Of tie Legisla-
tufe, arc no longer adapted for park pur-
poses, and the purchase Of other parks with |
the proceeds Of the sale be not held to he |
substantial continuance Of the public use !
created by the original grant to the city,
and it be held that such proceeding is q |
diversion of the land from its original use,
then the requirement Of the Legislature
thnt the city sell the same is void. In that !
case, to sell the land will require the con-
sent Of the city and Of the United States,
tho original donee and donor.
The second point-whether the United !!
States is the proper person to apply for re-
lief in such casc-is one Of mere form of |
pleading, and the fact that the case admits |
Of legal intcrpoaition once Established,
the ptyPoE parties can easily be found to !
nsk for it.
The rnilroads virtually ndnllt that the
deed from the city and the net OF the Leg !
islature will really convey to them no title
to the land, and that, in addition to these,
grant or patent from the United States will |
be necessary
This proceeding before Jndgo Drumnond
merely has reference to tho two blocks
north Of Madison street =; the other one
stands upon different title. It was origin
ally part Of the land granted to the State OF
Illinois to aid in the construction Of the
canal, and was set apart hy the Caua1 Com
missioncrB as part Of public park. The
title to that block, and to the others south
Of it, passed from the United States to tho
State, and by the latter was devoted to park
purposes. How far the State has the au-
thority to compel the city to sell it, or any
portion Of it, is another branch Of tho same
general inquiry, and is one which, like tho
other, must havc, eventually, q judicial de-
termination In the meantime, the period
fixed by tho Legislature for the execution
Of tho deed expired yesterday, August lG,
but, under tho order Of Judge Dru1nmond,
made on Saturday, the rights Of all parties
remain unchanged pending tho inquiry be-
fore him. Il