The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1873-05-29
Decision Against the BoeseI Railroad
Law


/ The Supreme Court Of Ohio or
Tuesday last, prOnOunced the B5e<e
railroad law unconstitutional, th,
iuli bench cOHcurring in this .lec,S.
son The opinion was rendered hy
Chief Justice White, who stated. IS
the grounds of the decision, the fol.
towing points
FIRST That it j. unlawful fora muui-
panty to levy = tax for the purpose
% nultuing @ part uf railroad, which
part can be OF no public utility ''unleSs
useu 10 OaeeOmpliSh,Su unconstitutional
purpose" meaning thereby To helm
Ia the construction Of = complete line
/ OF road.
Second, That where public credit
or money is voted by a municipality
To be used in part construction of \
road, the rest of which must be built
! by other parties out of their own
means, the public credit or money
thus used can only be regarded as
| furnished for or in aid of such other
| parties; and that therefore such act
o. the municipality in voting to bald
such part of y road, is in cOntraven-
/ ton of the article OF the constitution
N AOA AAAAAAAAE- NAu-AAAAhAHAOuS NlA EllE e0LAL &
/ to aid private enterprises.
| And finally, the Court held tiia5 the
I BOese! law does not sufficiently diStin-
/ guish between the lawfnlneSs ur uu-
lawiulnesS Of the purpose u which
Z the money raised or held is to h,. an
I piled, the money raised under that
law being equally applicable To the
iHilawful purpose or aiding railroad
companies to built their roads, a. 10
the tdIcf,R purpose of building an en-
TiFe road by the municipality itself
The remarkable fact about this dC-
cisiOn is that it is rendered by the
same bench which pronounced con-
stitutiOnal the Furgusou bill of 1859,
authorizing the city Cf Cincinnati 10
build the Southern railroad, from
that city 10 Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The full bench affirmed the conStitu-
tiOnaiity OF that law; and the fIY
bench has now denied the cOnsttu-
tiOnality of this. And the only radi-
cal point Of difference between the
twO-the Ferguson law and the BPsel
LAWS that the former authorized q
municipality to build trhOle road
and To own and operate, or To sell OF
lease the same; while tie latter au-
thOriZed cities, villages or townships
to build parts Of roads, and to own,
or lease, or sell such parts of roads
The whole force Of the decision in the
Buesel law case rests upon this one
point: namely; that it IS lawful for a
municipality to build an entire road,
but lullawful for a municipality to
build part Of % road, since thereby
it Is aiding q joint stock company,
which is forbidden by the cOnstitu-
ton.
We simply set forth these facts that
our readers may see upon how fine q
distinction, almost without difference
the Supreme Court Of Ohio being the
same tO a man a. il was in 1870, has
been able virtually to reverse its own
decision of three years ago sustaining
the Ferguson Railroad bill. The
principle Of the two laws is the same,
and the mOdUs OperGtCli almost iden-
ticaI; but the Court finds that the Fer
gusOn is right, and the BOsel wrong.
We think we are not out OF the way
in saving that the Judges were in-
fIuenced in their later decision more
by reasons of public expedieney than
by principles of constitutional inter
pretatiOn-tlle RR sci law, being gen.
eral, has been found dangerous; where
as the Ferguson law, being limited t.
Cincinnati, could do no outside harm.
And we think the Judges are right IN
the opinion that the stale at large is
better off without tile BOesel law
Ledder.