Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1871-04-06

ing q part of the property and ex
empting a part within the sam
municipality, which would be a vic
lation of section two, article twelve
Of the Constitution. But no par
tial taxation is sought to be, o
can be made under the provisions
Of this bill, because the tax to IL
levied is required to be levied upoI
all the property, real and personal
in Che city, township or county, a.
the case may be; SO that it is per
fectly manifest that the distinction
alluded to by the gentleman Mr.
Mower) does not, in the least, af
feet the question under considera
tion.
What is the difference, so far as
| this question is concerned, between
building a road by a general tax
or a local assessment? There can
be none.
But further than this; it is pro-
vided by the system Of road i'm
provement lawsi in force in this State,
that upon a majority Of the resi-
dent landholders, whose lands are
within one mile on either side of
the contemplated road, subscribing
and presenting to the County Com
missioners a petition praying for
the location and construction OF a
turnpike road, such road may be
laid out and constructed by grad
ing, graveling, macadamizing, &c,
and the expenses thereof collected
by a general tax on all real and
personal property within one mile
on each side Of such turnpike. l
refer to the act that passed and took
effect April 10Th, 1867.
What is the distinction in prin-
ciple between the county construct.
ing a public Improvement road
by putting gravel and plank upon
it, to make it convenient for travel,
and constructing public improve
ment-a road-by grading and
putting ties and iron rails upon it,
for a like purpose? Or where is
the difference in principle, between
the county constructing a public
improvement, if its citizens want
it, such as a road over which wag-
ons and buggies are to be drawn,
by horses, oxen, or mules, and one
over which carriages are propelled
by steam? Is there anything in
the form of the vehicle, the flesh
of the living horse, or texture of
the iron horse, that makes such a
radical change, and transforms SO
what in the one case
is a public improvement authorized
by the Constitution, into q joint
stock company, corporation or as
sociation, in the other case prohib
tied by the Constitution?
/ affirm, and believe it cannot be
that the difference in the
mode of construction, or the man
ner of the use. can make no essen
tial difference in the character Of
the Improvement.
If the one is a joint stock com
pany, or corporation, so is the 9th
err; if the one is a means of lend
ing money, credit, DC, to such a
or association, then so is
The other. But if the one is with
out constitutional interdietion, the
other is equally so. II | am cor
rect in this, then the Supreme Court
has, | think, practically put this
question of the bills constitution
llity at rest.
In the case of Eastman VS.. The
commissioners of Warren county
II 0. S, R., 55S], that court has
decided these road improvement
avs to- be constitutional-that
hey are not inconsistent with or
'epugnant to section 6, article VIII
If our Constitution, or any other
provision thereof.
Welch, J.-Says: ut is difficult
% see how the act in question viO
ates this provision (Sec. 6, Art.
WHY, The petitioners, at whose in
stance the improvement is author
zed to be made, are not joint
stock company 'corl Grafton or
an association Ifthey are either,
then so are all petitioners for the
establishment and improvement of
public roads, and the county is
to aid any such work
either with its money or with its
credit. The roads to be construct
ID under the act are not private
property"
| need not stop to argue that the
manner of voting, in order to de
erlnine that a majority favor the
Improvement, whether by subscrib
ng to petition, or putting the
lame on a ticket and placing that
n a ballot box at an election, can
lot in the least alter the principle
II affect the question. N
Again, the bill now under con-
liberation is the same in substance
s the Ferguson Act under which
is proposed to construcr the
.outhern Railroad from the city
( Cincinnati, south.
That act has been under a re. {
lew in the Superior Court of Gin I
innati, in the case of J. Bryant I
Walker VS.. City OF Cincinnati, and
full bench in general term, on the j
III day Of January, 1871, affirmed '
le constitutionality of the act. If S
lat decision is good law, and ! 4
ave no reason to doubt it, then t
.-k.a., b,,f kbot