, 1870-05-26

tlonnl Question.
I From Tie Detroit Tribune, Hay e.
b This morning. in the Supreme Court, the ze
= argument OF the case of the Detroit d Howe
\ Railroad Company VI. The Town Of Salem, IN
. volvtng the constitutionality OF the Railroa'
, siderable time. The following arc the quea
: lions suggested BY the Court to the counse
, for special argument:
l. did Inc proceedings which were had create
I tutc OF contract, between the township and u
sai1foaa eemP9apy; ~ If 80, Tnat wss its psecss.
npoa Which ne company Is Is eaRsttIea aRds g ta'
: Could ihe Legislature, without the vote O.
act authorized to do with reference to the Issue
Of bonds and the ieVyfng Of taxes 10 pay them
a ,a Rbs any oSas q
Z When tie nlnofity q the i taxpayers | of the
70 par the taxes IN question: Is it By any power e1.
listing in tho township as separate Organization
orby the sovereign legislative power q me State
the power 10 determine for ITSELF, local Legts.
lature or administrative body, BY majority Of
I are 50 far OF q local benefit or advantage to the
township ns to Justify township ald+ entering into
contracts to secure such benefit and to furnish
snGa ala, ana ne imposition OF taxes to meet the
= u bonds arc issued by the township and
gwen TO the company TO encourage the building Of
not be otherwise constructed. and no aSTa1oemenf
Z made binding the company 70 repay the bonds
ed IS donation, Or Is contderaton @ - Th;ch n i
In tns opinion q The majority WIN fally eompen-
q Is there any propef rule Of apportlonment Of
1ss provided for By the ACT, and what istne ruler
fes Vhes tb sai5oad q or ouy that goen Of L
! which the tax is yored7
prohibition diner in tits respect from those IN
against entering Into treaties, Keeping troops and
s q iG sRe iae
vass9n of Religious nberty7
proytments,n In Section O. Aricie XIV. af e. nnr 1
State Constftution7 - 1eA
By an examination Of the question submit
ted, It will be seen that Che burden Of answer
ing them and maintaining the act devoIyos
upon the counsel for the railway, and. there
fore it is proper to state suecinctly their posi-
tons. This morning the case for the town
was opened BY VI. Beakes, Of Ann Arbor, and
We sha! hereafter state the substance Of the
reply Of himself md Mr. Lothrop to the argu-
nent OF the counsel for the railway.
As to the first question, it is claimed by |
nlesars. Pond and Hughes, for the railroad, !
that, considering the situation of the parties-
the company being about to build ! railway,
afara aaa the e. town oanas being epowe1sd b the Le
action of the two parties created Wild con-
tract, upon which the company acted and re-
led Indeed, both parties h8ve acted with a
mutual understanding, and haye, IN consid-
Other: The contract waa that the township
Wonld deliver the bonds il the company would
construct the 1oad within the borders Of the
town Of Salem By July j, 1868. It was further
argued that even II the court failed to 6nd the
e1lstenee Of technical contract, it did not
follow that tho writ should not issue. II an
implied contract vera found by circumstautial
evidence it might authorize the writ. The
proceedings Of the town constituted continue
ing offer, and the performance Of the condi-
ton on which it was based was sufficient &C.
Geptance to bind the parties It was also urged
that the company was entitled to the rna7ada11us
on the ground that the aid had been voted,
mHipReg 5aitR = expended a Y the company upon the
township no legal discretion, but only the
IS not an act to enable the township
to contract to pledge it's credit, but N
When the company show that they have com
Piled with the conditions, they are entitled to
he credit Of the township, and their right to !
'ho bonds becomes vested. Thsre is no such
e as That q principal and agent between
4S HU"A4lAA4e 1iAAA AO"Ao4AP Inc QOC-
r!nes Of principal and agent do not apply IN
his case Tha township board are public OFF,
:ers charged with the Performance of certain
'utses which they may be compelled to per
oim when the rights Of Individuals are IN
iolred. The pledge Of the credit Of the town
hip is Like tho subscription to stock, whan The
tatute authorizing the subscription 'imparts ,
consideration and makes the obligation to take
nd par 10! the stock binding, though there
sas = ~ no such consideration OF mutuality rs to
In answer to the questions g, 8, 4, and s., G
ounset for the railway submit the following 8
ieWGs q
This act is Legislative in its character and for
ubhc purpose connected with the government ! n
Is the Legitimate business ol townships to make a
2ads 9nd ether IKE improvements It must Of d
letn TO do It, or 1t may, as tn this case copier
pom them power To do IT. leaving 1t optional win
'e .oMnsnip TO exercise It OF nol as majority Of
le voters may determine or otherwise, and this o.
ne aseSs5sgn lssslstgs Porss
r taxation, or township I'D In any form which =.
sts upon ta1non as its foundation Is Legislative y
legislature is nnal and n this case It has been ex
cised By the Legislature ITSELF and the project in
he aided Is named In the set, and no other Ii
ine that the Legislature may delegate to the -
wnship the power 70 determination ITSELF as y y
hctheF Certain dessna.ed entsI Srses of paDIie
atnsa afe % far Of local benefit as to Justify !
Nnsn1p aid.
The constitution provides that: in
THE Legislature may confer upon Organized r
Wps1lpa, incorporated cttiea md vfIla9es, and -
,on n., Tie Board Of Supervisors Of ne several 3
mlnlstFative character IS they may deem eet
When bonds are Issued BY the township and Il 81
ven to the company, they me given as 20 much sx ~
Oney expended In the construction OF d road | s.
s tesn9a precisely H. as
ny expend this money without compensation tn
m the township does not change the character #,
it would he money ~ Was espended I T 5y aco1- a i
!cto1 Under the township. H.
Ins IS @c9mnany M ar a1d he township each have mon G.
al, and the company merely takes the township r.
'neJ and pays It out ioE labor the road, pre- th
IS not Interested and It Is noticeable 1acE that fo
nothing 70 DO with The Iron or rolling stock r.
e. but expended on the road; o. In The Language r
the act 1t aids In Its constructed 1t Is entirely HI
that there should be any such thing wa
consideration. otherwise than as Consideration sal
p. It Is built for the public convenience and Ia
ests Of the township It Gun make no differ op
,e that the company advance this money for the Of
RI, under contract to reimburse it prt
tut Ia another view, the building OF the road Is The
consideration for the bonds, aud the public n1E
aeas IT. to be derived nom 1t Is the lndncemeut to
n answer to the sixth question, the counsel
the railway urge that the act does furnish La
proper rule Of appn1tionment Of taxes COZ
at the object Of this particular tax ia to cer
'struct railway through the township Of me
cm. The amount OF the securities is to be nel
e=eed on the taxable property OF the town Pre
P, under the general taxing Laws upon an =
,ohonment according to lis true cash value, ger
the township IS tie taxing district. The Gar
cunt that il to be paid by each township is ula
ID by the township itself, This liquidation res
rot. ropugnant to the constitutional pro :. .
ona Or the fundamental rules OF taxation, At
he Immediate object is to build the road the
ongh Salem township, though: the general saf
ect is to construct it from Detroit to Howell aon
necessity for taxing districts is fully SAITH rec
By By this yet BY making each township III IT
1-anzreT to the eighth aud ninth questions, a
counsel for the. railroad maintain that the b
il valid and constitutional, not conflicting Leg
! Sections 6, 9, and 9, Article IA, Of the g.
shtutiou, which are ns followp: eDji
C. The credit OF the State shall not be grant the
2 OF In AID Of, any persou association, OF resI
c The State sna1l not subscribe to, or be IN ie1e
sted u the stock Of any company, association, tnre
:. 3. The State shall not be party to, or In 3.
sted in, any wolk OK Internal Iup5uyemeut peo
is argued that the word = State" Ii these | any
isions refers only to the State as corpo- imp
N, and not to the Inferior or subordinate / or q
licipa1ities within the State. The case Of T..
lyman rs- Supervisors, 19 III 40e, ia egpe- cent
> referred to, and the opinion OF Walker, ince
5 very fully quoted from. The case has men
fully approved by subsequent decisions ! as
linols- The case Of Slack cS. MnssTiIIe 4 G00,'
ngton Railroad, Is B Monroe !, and Clarke g.
ity Of Rochester, q Barb. 1852, are also nigh
l.. bers
,ak these provisions apply to the State in cal ]
Hfa q