The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1872-12-30
MONDAY, DECEMBER 80, 1879.
Bulldog Railroads Apd PiIing up


D.bt Under an UneORSIItutiODAi
Law.
On the esh Of January, the people Of
Cleveland will be called upon to vote
whether or not they will bond the city
Tor q million dollars ~ z per cent. to help
build = projected railroad thence up the
CuysbogA river called the Valley" road,
Of which our readers have heard some
thing 10 connection with jhe Wheeling &
Lake Erie project. LIS serious ques.
ton Tor Cleveland taxpayer, and it il
being seriously discussed in the city jour.
mails. Howtvarit may be with the mas
Of voters, the weight Of argument in the
papers Is against the project The OBJ
jectionS are many and sound.
One fundamental objection is that the
principle Of the proposed subscription,
and like 1t, is wrong, because 1t takes
property by public taxation and gives it TO
spri7Ate corporation. It is held, and
Justly, We think, that the righto Of taxation
is limited to purposes strictly public,
wheTs the beneatof the property taken in
this way Is common 70 all those from whom
it's taken. When TAX is levied for the
benefit Of private party, it is cou6Scs-
tIo1. a private corporation asks that ii
may be aided by public taxation.
Here is 3 citizen who says: II am will
"ipg that those who want TO subscribe
"thelr own money to the stock Of that
"Compsny may do 80, and it think
"enough Of it as an investment may do
"the same. But I sm not willing that
"they shall subscribe for me and take my
"propertY by force to pay the subscription.
"Igrsnt that they may take my property
"ior legitimate purposes Of government,
Glocal. State or national; but deny. that
"tbe right exists anywhere to take one
"mAn's property, under color Of taxation,
"snd give it to another BY subscribing it
ito private enterprises. 5uch an exercise
"oI the taxing power Is mere robbery
This Is substantially the Argument as we
find it from day TO day in the Cleveland
Journals. 1t issn argument that We com
mend to the tax.pPyers Of Wheeling who
are beset, just as the people Of Cleveland
are, by proposition 10 make forced
contribution for the bentft OF private
railroad corporation.
The people Of Cleveland, alarmed at
the magnitude Of the demand, and at the
resolution and persistency Of those who
mSkei are appealing for protection TO their
State Constitution, whose absolute and
sweeping prohibition Of public taxation
In aid Of private corporations was quoted
10 our columns lew weeks ago On The
16th inst. number OIL citizens addressed
a letter to Judges R P. RAENEY and
SAMUEL WILLIAMSON, Of Cleveland, sub
hitting these Inquiries:
ave therefore respectfully request that,
Tor the benefit Of ourselves and others in
terested, you will transmit to US Your
written opinion as to the legal rig6l OF
the CITY Oi Cleveland 10 levy the tax
prOp~ed tor the construction VI sucn
rosc?
"And if the city has the righ. to con.
struct such srsilrUad, has it the right 10
cell or lease the same 10 railroad or
other corporation!
Again, in case the road should be
built has the city the right 10 equip and
operate II, il not leased or sO!d, 0, ia cue
OF forfeiture Of lease whereby the railroad
W0Cld Eemsin OF hereafter become the
properly Of The city,"
The answer 10 these inquiries is copied
in another part Of this paper. We copy
1t because 1t is valuable commentary on
the proposition that this city shall
incur an obligation oil 100000 as
8 stakeholder under the OHIO rail.
road Law therein discussed. The oues.
ton Of making the railroad and
bridge subscriptions comes up in council
again week hence, and we hear-con.
trary TO general supposition-that in spite
Of tho constitutional inhibition, in def.
ance cI al considerations Of common
prudence and common sense-lhe epgin.
GERS propose to push the scheme through
according 10 the original programme. In
the week that is TO elGpse we ask our cit
liens, including cOunciImeu, to look mar.
roWly into the Status OF the Ohio law
under which this Wheeling & Lake Erie
Company propose to operate. Judges
RASHEY and WILLIAMSON show conclu-
siVely, we think, that the law is in viola.
ton Of the State constitution; and when
60 adjudged all proceedings under it will
be null aud void. They show tha, the
Cincinnati decision which was taken as a
wsrrantior the enactment OF the BoEsEL
bill, does not justify il. They dissent
from the propriety Of that decision
In toto, but granting it 10 be
sound find no reason in it for such
an enactment as the BoEsEL law. The
striking difference between the Cincinnati
case and any case under the BoEsEL law
Is, that in the former the city was author.
lied to build road with its own means
on It's sole account Under the BoEsEL
law, as in the case Of the Wheeling s.
Lake Erie project, it is proposed to unite
public subscriptions with private, and
afterwards turn the whole property over
toprivate hands; whereas, the decision in
the Cincinnati case itself declares that the
constitutional provision "lorbids the union