The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1869-04-24
TAXATION IN AID OF RAILROADS AND
THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

opesuons is probably coafned to law publ
cations; but there ID no field of inquir
which newspaper editors dare not enter q
the risk, many times, Of having leveled a
them Shakespeare satire about wrens perch
IN, where eagles dare not fly If the
A, not enlighten their readers, they Otter
pr5yoke Inquiry among others who do.
The recent decision by the Suprem,
Coort Of Iowa, declaring unconstitutional ,
legislative enactment Of that State author
,.o, counties and townships to vote and
law taxes in aid Of railroads constructed
through them, has attracted very general at.
too,ion throughout The Northwest. The de.
ci.iop has been dsatb blow to some infant
railroad enterprises IN our sister State, and
seriously threatens the success Of others.
This decision has been regretted, though
no, inve.shed against, we believe, by all that
large class Of persons in Iowa who think
railroads are developers Of the resources
and prosperity Of the State, and not simply
indications Of it. The general interest felt
in the question in Iowa, induced the Chi.
cago P0F to review, at considerable length,
the decision Of the Court, as given in the
opinion by Chief Justice Dillon, and by
way OF Consohng its Iowa, readers We sup
pose, for the present losses occasioned by it,
commended the opinion both Cor its good
law and its ultimate results upon the rail.
road interests OF the State. The review by
the PySi contains this clear statemen; Of
well settled principles Of law on the subject
Of taxation and the right Of eminent do.
main:
Except by express Constitutional provis
ION, there is no limitation upon the legisla.
tive power as to amount of taxation but
there are limitations to the Legislature as TO
the purpose for which tax can be author
led, 1t cannot be authorized for any pri
vato purpose whatever, any more than under
the power Of eminent domain, private prop.
er,y can be taken for any private use what.
ever no matter how just the compensation
proposed
A correspondent Of the Post, few days
ago, after quoting the above paragraph, puts
10 that journal the subioiued pertinent
questions
an view Of the above statement permit
me to ask: Where DO Judge Dillon and the
Post find the right by which railroad com.
panY takes a part or the whole Of man.
farm without his consent, and Appropriates
il to It's own use Again, if there Is NJ
Legislative power to authorize the people tC
tax themselves TO give a bonus 10 a railroad
company, where does Congress find th
hight to donate lands and grant 50 5sldjes I
those companies?
The answer shows conclusiycly that tn
Post does not comprehend, or has not duI
considered the purport of its own statemer
Of the law, aud that it does not discover ii
point Of the inquiry made by its correspot
dent 1t says.
THE property taken for railroad is n
taken "a the way of u tax it is paid for
and experience tells US at a rate far abo
is real value. In the other case cited, Il
lands and subsidies granted TO railroads. b
Congress, are the property Of Congress-
Now this is no answer to the question
raised and mind trained to run in legal rut
aud sharpened by technical niccues, is nc
needed to discover it. The question is b.
what right railroad corporations take Pu
waite property without the consent Of TN
owner? The degree or adequacy Of com
pensa,ion is not involved in the inquiry -
The right is question Of constitutions
law, and the degree Of compensation is
question Of fact which may ultimately
determined by jury. The right does ~
derive its sanction from the degree of con
pensaton, aud is in no way dependent up0
it., though compensation is necessary a
tendant of it. Value is proposition q
fact which no two men may agree about.
The Post reviewed at great length Judg
Dillon's elaborate opinion, and knows tina
the gist of it is, that the law authorizing tn
tax was unconstitutional and void, for III
reason that ii authorized the appropriate
of pirate property to pirate uses, wherea
taxes can only be levied for public uses
To reach this conclusion that the law wa
unconstitutional, he was compeledto argue
Us he did, that railroads are private eute
prises within the meaning Of tNs IH"' NJ
not public beuents. 1t is upon this assUm
law fact that the decision turns. II It
true, as Judge Dillon argues, that rajlroa
are strictly, within the meaning of the la
private enterprises, and for that reason ta'
es levied to aid in their construction IS ii
appropriation of private property to priyat
and not public uses, by what legal autho
itv DO railroad corporations, canal comps
MES, etc, exercise and claim the right
way over farms, town-iots etc, etc? IL
rybody understands that it is by the right
eminent domain which resides in the SO
ereign, the State, and which IS delegated +
the sovereign to such companies. What
the right of eminent domain? Why simp
the right of the sovereign power TO tai
private property for public uses on makii
Just compensation to the owner. 1t h
never been claimed that the right eXten
to the taking of private property f
potodte uses, or authorizing one person
take another PERSONS property for his ow
use, even ioe any degree Of compensation
No man eau De compelled to part with hi
property at any price, except for public use
If these taxes to aid in the construction O
railroads are unconstitutional, for the reeso
that they are private and not public entc,