The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1871-01-17

"DeeQ ueClueu 10 Ut VAIN, anu NOT when
ian oct admitted 10 be valid has been mis-.
construed by the court"
The case of the Bridge Proprietors u.
The Hoboken Company, / Wallace, 116,
Is relied upon to sustain the Jurisdiction In
this case. In that case the law Of 1860
authorized the construction of q railroad
bridge within the limits Of the grant to
the Bridge Proprietors, and PSimG taela
was an Invasion Of their franchises, II
the railroad bridge was q "bridge" within
the meaning Of the law OF 100, It was an
invasion Of the chartered rights Of the
Bridge Proprietors, and therefore invalid.
The question before the court therefore
was, as To the palldly Of the law OF 1860.
1t is true that the question Of the validity
Of the law OF 1860. 1t Is true that the
question OF the validity Of the law Of 1860,
depended on the construction Of the law
ofi790. But nevertheless the matter up.
on which the Jurisdiction depended was
the validity Of the law Of 1860. The State
Court held Il valid, and the Bridge Propri.
etors claimed that the court had erred In
so holding, and that they were thereby
deprived Of their chartered rights which
were guaranteed to them by the Constittl.
ton Of the United States. We have no
occasion to find fault with this decision,
although Judge Greer, who delivered the
opinion Of the court in the case Of the
Commercial Bank eS. Buckingham, dis.
sented from It. iE7 9,.' 7
It's no where claimed in tho bill filed
in the State Court, that the Acts Of the
Legislature Of West Virginia imposing
taxes upon the property of railroads, are
In conflict with the charter of the com.
pany, and therefore invalid. II discusses
the "truc construction" Of various provis.
ions oil It's charter, and complains that the
acts ofthe defendants in assessing and
threatening to collect taxes upon its prop
erty arc violations Of It's charter. The In.
juries otwhich the company complain are
summed up as follows: "All of which Is
"in violation ofthe vested rights Of this
complainant under the several acts aforc.
''sail constituting its charter, and In con-.
"trayention Of tho Constitution of tho Uni,
"ted States, and contrary to equity" sc.
Il Is not the law imposing taxes upon
railroads that is complained Of, but tho
acts Of the defendants arc illegal and inlu-
rious 10 tho compliments. Whether
these acts are illegal or not, depends on
the construction Of the laws OF the State
granting certain franchises to the Railroad
Company, and not upon tho validity Of
tho laws imposing taxes upon railroads.
The answer claims that by fur and just
construction Of tlle charter Of tho COM
plainant, It's property Is subject 10 taxa
ton, and that tho State authorities have q
right to assess and collect taxes upon 1t.
There is no claim or pretence in the an.
swer Of tho defendants that they haze
any right 10 assess or collect taxes
on the property Of the company in
any manner or TO my extent, not
authorized by the terms and proyi-
sIons Of the various acts Of tho Legisla-
tllre which constitute tho charter Of the
company. No question was submitted to
the State Court as 10 the validity Of any
law Of the State, and no such question
was or could have been decided by the
court Il is perfectly clear from the whole
record, from the pleading, exhibits and
proofs In the cause, that the questions that
were litigated in the case, were questions
Of law arising upon the construction Of
the various provisions Of tho charter OF
the company, and questions Of fact rs to
the amount Of capital invested and the
profit that had been realized from It,
liIf the opinion Of tho court, which the
law requires TO BE- lilrtl, could be looked
to, the court wouli see that no question
as 10 the validity Of any State law was
considered or decided by the Court.
"Under the 25th section Of the Judicl.
"ary Act II must appear, l. That some
zone OF the questions stated In that sec.
"tion did arise in the State Court 2.
"That the question was decided by the
estate Court as required by the same Sec
"tion. 8. II is sufficient Il it appear by
"clear and necessary amendment from the
"record, that the question must have been
raised aud decided, 1t did not appear in
"terns. 4. II Is not sufficient that ques-
"tion might have arisen or been applica.
"ble; 1t must appear that II did arise and
"was applied" Crowell q, Randall, 10;
Peters, 36S. 4
Here 1t Is perfectly. clear from tho rec
ord that no such question did arise, and
that no such question was decided. We
submit. therefore, with entire confidence,
that this case must be dismissed for want
Of jurisdiction. But II the court should
find that there Is enough in the record TO
give this court jurisdiction, still the ques-
ton for the court Is upon the construction
Of tho Virginia statute Of March Q, 1847.
Upon that question this court williOllow
tho decision OF the State court j BY the
34th section Of the Judiciary Act pt1769,
tue statutes oil the State arc made rules Of
decision In the courts ofithe United States.
The decisions Of tho court Of last resort on
the construction Of State statutes are Just
as binding upon tho courts al the United
States as The text Of the statute itself. In
the case Of. Leflngwell us. Warfen,S2
~ Black, 803, the court says: The con.
SStruction given TO a statute OF o State by
"the highest judicial tribunal Of such
aState Is regarded as part Of the statute
"andis as binding onithe courts OF the
%United States as tho text. 1.-THE highest
judicial tribunal Of o State adopt new
"views as to the proper construction Of
"such statute and revise its former dc.
cisiois, this court will follow tho latest
SETTLED adjudlcations,
IN These doctrines are so well established
by the repeated decisions Of this court,
that they are no longer matters Of coptro-
yersy. II there was any conflict in the
decisions OF the Courts Of Virginia or
West Virginia, on the construction Of this
law, the matter might be worthy Of fur.
Their consideration. But there Is no such
conflict. This statute has never heen con.
sideted by the Courts Of either State, I'm.
III tho case now before the court was do.
cided in the Court Of Appeals Of West
Virginia. One Of the questions before
that court was whether the provision In
the 9Th section 81 the law Of March Q,
1917, which made the property OF the
company subject to general TAXATION
A.. o.. a., ayal