New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-03
TExAs INTERNATIONAL RAILROAD.


the authority of the Legislature to alter
amend or repeal certain sections of an act
incorporating the International Railroad
Company, and to provide for aid by the
State of Texas in constructing the same.
The report is signed by Mr.. Parsons fol
the committee, and is important inasmuch
as it denies the authority of the Leglsla-
ture to alter, amend or repeal certain Sec
tons of said act giving State aid. Ihe
advocates of the repeal of the donation
clause attempted to show that the act is
| unconstitutional because it has two OBJ
iects, which is contrary to section seven
teen, article twelve, of the State constl-
tuition. which declares that ''every law
enacted by the Legislature shall embrace
but one object, and this shall be expressed
in the title.
The report holds that it is a late hour
in Texas railroad legislation to advance
the doctrine that any act comforting the
authority to construct, coupled with a
provision to give State sid to assist the
construction, are two such different objects
as will invalidate the charter. To de-
clare such to be the case, it is asserted,
would render void every railroad charter
containing a land grant ever passed by
the Legislature of Texas, as the same
provision exists in all Of the constitu-
tons that have been enacted for Texas
since its organization as State.
The report states that the primary object
of all such acts has been the construction
of the line of road chartered, and that any
authority, franchise, aid or grant in such
charter expressed, looking to the one OBJ
ject of construction, is strictly constltu-
tional, for the object or purpose is not
two-fold, but absolutely single. 1t is
shown that the provision of the constitu-
ton cited was not intended to apply to
charters for railroads containing land
grants or other State aid to assist in their
construction, which is the object of the
charter. A judicial opinion of the Su-
preme Court of Texas is given to show
that sit was held that the word object
should not be understood in the sense of
provision" The "opinion" continues:
Nor could it have been intended that no
act Of legislation should be constitutional
which had reference to the accomplishment
of more than one ultimate end, for an act
box or
may incidentally effect or be promotive of
others, and it would be impossible to legis-
late so as to prevent this consequence. The
intention, doubtless, was to prevent embrac-
ing in an act having one ostenslble object
principles having no relevancy to that OBJ
ject, but really designed to etfectuate other
and wholly different objects, and thus to
conceal and disguise the real object pro-
posed by the provisions of an act under
false and deceptive title.
The report then proceeds to give the
origin and cause of the provision in ques-
ton. 1t says:
The Evolutionary history of this clause,
which was first inserted in the constitution
of Georgia in 1898, proves that our Supreme
Court Interpretation above is correct, for
the great Yazoo territorial fraud of 1895 was
concealed and disguised under the caption
of IAN act for the payment of the late State
troops"
Hence, the Supreme Court of Georgia, in
the case of Mayor VS.. the State of Georgia
"A Georgia, 38), held that the true interpre-
tation of this clause is, that $50 much only
of a statute is void as contains matter differ
ent from what is expressed in the title"
It is shown that the international
charter contains no provis on different
from what is expressed in its title as its
caption reads: Gan act to incorporate the
railroad, and to provide for
the aid of the State of Texas in construct
ing the same" And it is contended that
the act, as expressed, has nothing con-
cealed and disguised under false and
deceptive title.
In this age of railroads many of the
points raised in the case of the Interna-
tional railroad in Texas will be con-
sidered of public interest; and therefore
we feel justified ia reviewing more ex-
tensively than we otherwise would the
views taken by the majority and minority
of the committee.
The minority contended that the ninth
section, making donation Of ten thou
sand dollars to each mile actually con-
and providing for its payment
by taxation, is unconstitutional, because
it was the exercise of an unauthorized
power by the Legislature. This view is
attempted to be sustained by the decision
rendered in Michigan, in the case of the
Detroit and Howell Railroad Company VS..
the Township Board of Salem, and printed
in the July number, 1870, of the Bench
md Bar.
The majority members, in their report,
hold that this decision fully sustains the
action of the Legislature in making do
nation of ten thousand dollars to each
mile of railroad actually constructed,
and providing for its payment by taxation,
for where the State itself is to receive the
benefit of the taxation, in the increase of
its public fund or the improvement Of its
public property, it is asserted there can
be no doubt of the public character of the
purpose. The International railroad will
pass through the heart of Texas, and
therefore it is contended there can be no
doubt of the public character of the pur-
pose.
The report charges that most erroneous
conceptions in regard to donations and
subsidies to internal improvements Dre-