The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-17
FIRST EDITION
THE cETx TRUSTS.
A DECISION OF THE CASE.
The Supreme Court Sustains the Con-
stitutionality of the Act Creating
the Board of Trusts-The
Opinion in Full.

from the decree of the Nisi Prius, refusing an
injunction to restrain the new Board OF Trustees
from entering upon their dnties and which was
instituted solely for the purpose of testing the
cOnstitutonality of the Act of Assembly taking
the management OF the trusts from the city, and
Vesting it in Board of Directors TO be APP
pointed by the Judges of the Supreme Court
and of the local city courts. The decision esta-
blishes the validity of the act, and atlirms the
decree of the Nisi Prius. There was no dissent
on the part of any of the Judges.
Cfy Of Philadelphia u.s. RoG. Appeal from, the decree
Of the Court Of Nisi PrtuS. In equity
The city of Philadelphia ia, beyond all question,
municipal corporation, that is, public corporation
created by the government for political purposes,
and having subordinate and local powers OF legisa-
ton. Keat., Comm, 275-an incorporation OF per-
sons, inhabitants Of particular place or connected
with particular district, enabling them to conduct
its social civil government. GLOW. Max. Corp. ~
IL merely agency instituted by the sovereign for
the purpose OF carrying out in detail the objects Of
government-essentialy revocable agency, having
no vested right to any OF its powers or functions
the charter or act OF erection being in no sense
contract with the State and therefore fully subject
the control of the Legislature, who may enlarge
or diminish its territorial extent or its functions,
may change or modify its internal arrangement or
destroy It's very existence with the mere breath OF
arDlMaIy &c @ oCo SIC JTOi0' i' h mS g, 10 % 1
deniable and has not been denied. That while 1t
thus exists in subsection TO the will of the sovereign
it enjoys the rights and is subject to the liabilities OF
any other corporation, public or private, is equally
undoubted. This was theverv object Of making it a
body polite, giving it legalentty and name seal
by which to act in solemn form, capacity to con-
tract and be contracted WITH to sue and be sued
persona saudi i jtdicis to hold and dispose OF pro-
perty, and thereby to acquire rights and incur re-
sponsiblities. These franchises were conferred
upon it for the purpose of enabling it the better to
effect the main design OF its institution, the exercise
of certain Of the powers Of government subordinate
80 the Legislature over certain part OF the terri
tory Of the State. But all this affects its relations to
other persons natural artificial Ii does not touch
its relation to the State its creator It is nothing to
the purpose then to show thaa city may act in GER
tain particulars as private corporation-may make
contracts sucl, and that il cannot impair the
obligation OF contract entered into by it in that
capacity because may deem it for the benefit Of its
citizens TO do SO; nor is 1t in the power OF the
Leglsature under the provisions Is OF the consult
Western Saving Fund Society VS.. City OF Phila-
delpbia Casey, 175, 1s5. 1t is equally aside from
any question respecting its essential nature and sub
lection to the sovereign will to discuss its abili
ties for the acts neglects of its officers agents,
or whether 1t can rightly be made or has been made
responsible for such are not appointed or selected
by ITSELF but by the State, or IN some special mode
4ss; Pruther vs. vs. city, % Is B. 4Snsor, 55s 8icorn vs.
The City, S. Wright, 34s. The sovereign may con-
receive the appointment OF all its oncers agents
into its own hands, for the power which can create
and destroy can modify and change, indeed, the
stitutOn, could not by contract invest any munic-
pal corporation with an irrevocable franchise Of
government any part OF it's territory. 1t can
not ALLEVIATE any part OF the Legislative power which
by the Constitution is vested in General Assembly
already convened. Parker VS.. The Commonwealth,
Barr, bO7 II the Legislature wish to attempt to
erect municipality with aspecia provision that its
charter should be unCnRnRcaDle or ureVOchOe,
such provision would be nuty; ior acts OF Par
lament derogatory from the power OF subsequent
1ftno Dha no sye not w. and
not have any vested rights as against the State Is
strikingy illustrated and exemphded In the Borough
was held by this Court that municipal corporations,
being creatures Of legislation, have constitutional
guarantee OF trial by jury and such trial may be
Such a municipal corporation may be trustee
under the grant or will of an individual or private
/
poses germane TO its objects. The Mayor ys. Elliott
vs.. The Mayor. ? Howsrd, f9T, ara aware that it
has heen said 0y high authority in England that 1t
may take aud hold In trnst for purposes altogether
private The Mayor VS.. Gloucester, House or
Lords 285. But the administration OF such trusts,
and the consequent liabilities incurred, are alto
gether inconsistent with the pEbc duties imposed
upon the municipality. 1t could hardly be pretended
think, in this country that IL could be trustee for
the separate use OF a married woman to educate
the children Of donor or testator or to accumulate
for the benefit OF particular persons IL certainly
il seem competent TO accept and administer them.
The trusts held by the city OF Philadelphia, which
enumerated in the bill before us are germane TO
It's objects. They charities and all charities are
in some public. IL trust is for any particular
persons 1t is not charity. Indenniteness is OF its
essence The objects to be benefited are strangers
to the donor or testator. The widening and i'm
provement OF streets and avenues planting them with
ornamental and shade trees, the education OF Or
phans, the building OF schoohouses the assistance
and encouragement OF young mechanics, reWardng
snnnort Of hosotas the dlstrIbution OF soup bread
fuel TO the necessitouys, are objects within the
general scope and purposes OF the municipality.
tough KING lie aaG cannot % reached BY uS'Ss the
process of any court without his consent,
Hill on Trustees, 40, and so may the State, though,
as / take it, under the Constitution only, for objects
germane 10 the purposes OF government The Gov
ernment OF the United States has accepted and ad.
ministered such trust under the will OF James
SmithsoD, "for the promotion OF knowledge among
men" When, therefore, the donors or testators o
these charitable funds granted or devised them IN
trust to the municipality they mast be held to have
done with the full knowledge that their trustee 81
selected was mere creature OF the State, an agen
acting under a revocable power. Substantially theJ
trusted the good faith Of the sovereign 1t is plain
too plain, indeed for argument-that the corpora
ton, by accepting such trusts, could not thereby In
vest itself with any immunity from legislative action
Such an act could not change its essential nature
IL surely not competent Tor mere municipal or
ganizaton, which is made trustee OF charity, T.
set up q vested right in that character TO maintain
such organization in the form in which IT existed
when the trust was created, and thereby prevent TN
State from changluglit as the public interests ma
require. Montpelier vs. East Montpelier, 20 Vermont
21 This whole question is put at rest, and that as
one OF the most important OF these trusts and Il
this trustee by the opinion OF the Supreme Court
the United States in Girard vs. Philadelphia, Wal
lace l4:-''It cannot admit OF o doubt" saws MI
Justice Grier, ''that where there Is valid devise
affected by any question as to It's validity because
superstition the sovereign may nierpose 10 enforc
the execution OF the trusts, either by changing tn
administrators, II the corporation be dissolved, or
not by modifying or enlarging It's franchises, pre-
vded the trust be not perverted, and no wrong don
TO the benefclaries. Where the trustee IS corpC
ration no modification OF its functions or change
It's name, white its identity remains, can affect il
purpose" With equal plauslbty might
be pretended that the acceptance by tf
Government OF the United States OF the bequest
contained in the Federal Constitution. IL It con
have such effect, the only logical consequence won
be thai the acceptance OF she trust would be uh