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

decision, aud / may add, ! do no
believe the Superior court could b
influenced by any such considera
tons. The gentleman { Mr.. Nov
err is at libtrtyto entertain whatey
er opinion he may feel limselfjus
fed in doing, Of that Court aud il
Judges. But ! can not consent Il
avow or believe that a Court tia
has so generally, and / think de
ssrvedly, received the respect anC
confidence of the legal profession
not only Of the city Of Cincinnati
but Of the whole State also. for III
high character, ability and dignity
its purity and learning-second on.
/ ly to the Supreme Court of the
State, could, or can be made to
pander to any popular prejudice OF
feeling, or be induced by popular
clamor or other unworthy or i'm.
proper influence, to disgrace itself,
or stoop to such humiliation OF
abasement as would merit and re.
ceive the just condemnation and
contempt Of all good people.
We have no reason to doubt that
this decision has been fairly and
honestly made, and / insist tat il
is sound and true exposition of
the constitution.
Judge Hazan says in his opin
ion delivered in that case that ''the
case had been under adyisement
with the General Term since the
month of October, and the whole
subject lad been most carefully
considered, in view of the magni-
tude and importance of the ques-
tions involved, as well as the dis
cdssion of them that has been had,
not only before this court, but else
where. The result reached is en-
tirely satisfactory to each member
of the court"
That court considers and effectu-
ally disposes OF the argument
made here against this bill, and of
the case relied on and cited by the
gentleman from Clark.
l quote a brief paragraph from
the opinion delivered by Judge
Taft He says: "The opinion of
Judge Cooley in the case of the
people VS.. Salem, in the Supreme
Court of Michigan, is not incon-
sistent with the decision we now
make That opinion decided that
the levy of a tax to raise money to
give to a railroad company, either
by loan or by subscription to the
capital stock, to help construct its
road, is not proper use for the
taxing power, because it is giving
the public fund to private corpoa
ration.
at has no application to a case
where the municipal corporation
itself constructs a public work es
sential to it's own welfare, as the
learned Judge has himsel declared
in an opinion published since that
decision in which he says, "that the
power ofcities in Ohio to construct
works of internal improvement,
with Legislative permission, has
been settled by judicial decision"
and "that there is nothing in the
present Constitution of Ohio de
sirned to prevent the local authori-
les from levying taxes for the con-
struction of railroads where their
own agencies are employed for the
work" p"
"Indeed, the opinion comedies
entirely with that with Which we
have expressed. Nor is the case
Of Whiting vs.. the Sheboygan Rail
road Company, in the Supreme
Court Of Wisconsin, as published
in 8 Am, Law Reg. 1856 in conflict
with our opinion as now announc-
ed"
The gentleman from Warren( Mr..
has argued that the deeis-
ion Of the Superior Court of Gin
rinnati on the Ferguson act, does
not govern or apply to this bill, be-
cause he says that there is an i'm
portant difference between this bill
and the Ferguson act, He says
that the 18th section of the Griffith
bill confers authority upon the
etc, to leave the roads
built under it, and he affirmed with
much emphasis that no such pro-
vision can be found in the Fergu-
son act, from the beginning to the
end; but, that authority only is
conferred to construct, and operate
he road,
If the position were true in fact,
think it would not be a substan
.ial difference; it would be dis
inction without difference; for
he power to construct, own and
,perate, would necessarily carry |
With it or imply power to operate
lnder such agencies by lessees or
,therwise, as might be deemed best.
The operation Of the road BY any
gency would be the operation
hereof BY the county, We all re-
1ember but few days ago with
hat earnestness and tcitAering eff
ect the gentleman (Mr. Wilson,
uoted the legal maxim qui Jdcft
er aliam, facit per Sc, at the gen
eman from Hooking.
But the gentleman (Mr. Wilson, I
mistaken in his statement. One
ould suppose that before making
lch a broad and sweeping state
ent. he would at least have read
Ie bills. But it seems he did not {
/, a. n - IF H. boH