The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1870-06-01

producer of values for his own emol-
ument. All industry helps general
prosperity. No line can be found
which can, in law, make one business
more public than another. The
power to resort to taxation to set men
up in any business is a power that is
foreign to the purposes of govern
ment. 1t is not legislative power,
but unlimited sovereign will, that can
compel one private citizen to furnish
means to another. Taxation is only
lawful to enable the Government to
fulfill its public duties, and to pay
such expenses as are incident to pub
lie business. There is necessarily
considerable dissension to determine
what means may be desirable to ena-
BILE the Government to do its work
creditably, but the power to tax one
citizen for the private emolument OF
another, upon any theory OF mere in
! cidental advantage to the general
rosperity of large or small commu.
mites, can only rest on a foundation
| of absolute and irresponsible power
to make favored Glasses and citizens,
and make the whole body Of tax pay
ers tributary to them. No such pow
er can be tolerated in a republic, and
no hint of such a power can be found
in our Constitution"
This is the main principle of the
decision, which is argued at much
length, and in the collateral ques.
tions. As to the grant to Railroad
Companies of power to acquire right
Of way, upon this view that rail
road is no more than private person
or business, the question arises. how
can the State take the property Of
one person and confer it upon an.
other person? To this the Court
says:
1.-THE right of eminent domain is 6
vital right In every government, anC
must often be called into exercise
when a special necessity demands
that the private right in particular
piece of property shall give way fol
the public good. This right, it has
been held, may be exercised on behal
of railways in the hands of private
parties. But there can be no doubt
think, that this holding was a con
siderable modification of common Law
principles, though at the same time
Il must be admitted that 1t was or
such strong grounds of necessity and
policy, and in view of considerations 81
entirely new, as fully to excuse, and
indeed, to justify it. No principle wal
older, and none seemed better IN
derstood or more infexible, than tina
one mans property could not be taker
: under the power of the Government
and transferred 10 another against ths
will of the owner; but the State, new
ertheless, is allowed 10 do so in The
case of railroads, under the guise of 6
convenient fiction, which treats cor.
poration managing its own property
for its own profit, as merely public
convenience and agency. Nothing
but an overriding public necessity
could ever have led the Courts &c
this Judgment, for when the relations
between the proprietors of railroad
and the public are examined, we per.
ceive at once that the idea of an
agency in legal sense is inadmissi.
ble."
In conclusion the Court said:
Tho case before Us Is that CT 4
private corporation demanding
gratuity which has been voted to it IL
township meeting upon the assump.
ton that its business operations anC
facilities will incidentally benefit the
township. / do not find that the
meeting possessed any inherent au
thority to pass such a vote, or thai
any such authority could be conferred
upon it. The Legislature could
not confer upon the majority
there convened a Jurisdiction tC
measure for the minority the
demands upon their gratitude or lib.
erality. individuals as such mus
make their own donations, and decide
for themselves how FAR any proposed
enterprise Of other individuals car
properly and justly, in view of the
benefits they may receive therefrom
demand their aid and assistance.
IF the authority exercised
is not within the taxing power of the
State, it is quite needless to discuss
whether, if il were within it. there
are not restrictions which prohibit its
exercise"