The Republican journal., 1873-02-13
Decision Against Municipal Loans in Aid
Of Manufactures.

or Manufactures.
The fact that the Supreme Court of this
state has rendered Il decision against the
constitutionality of loans by towns in aid
Of manufacturing establishments has been
before noticed, but we had seen no ex-
| tended report OF the decision until it ap-
peared in the Boston Advertiser last week.
| The reasoning and conclusion of the court
a.e very lucidly presented by Chief jus
tice Appleton. The facts in the ease upon
which the decision is rendered are these F.:
| Hutchings & Lane, who had a manutac-
! turing establishment at Livermore Falls.
agreed to remove the same to jaw pro-
yided the latter town would loan them its
credit to the amount of ten thousand dol
| lars, at six per cent and exempt the prop
city from taxation for ten wears The es-
Enlistment should consist of Il steam saw
mill, with box machinery. and one run OF
stones for grinding meal An act Of the
Legislature authorizing the loan was pro-
cured, and at a town meeting called for
the purpose the loan was voted A law
OF The State provides that ten taxable in
habitants may have remedy in equity,
when counties, cities, towns or school
districts, for u purpose not authorized bY
}aW, vote to pledge their credit or to RAISE
money by taxation, or to pay money from
their treasury" Under this provision a bill
in equity was brought praying that the
town and its officers might be enioined
and restrained from issuing said bonds.
After stating the whole groundwork of
the case, the court lays down the gist of
the matter thus
Ultimately it viii be found that the question
| resolves Itself into an inquiry whether the leg
lSiature can cOnStitutionally authorize the ma
Jorly OF a town 70 loan their own and the
money OF minority raised bY taxation and
against the will of such minority, As they NAV
determine.
II is then stated that the entire and IN
varied weight Of judicial authority is that
taxes can be legally imposed only for the
use OF the people of the State. in the pur-
poses OF government, and not for the benefit
of individuals. The enterprise of milling,
as contemplated in the case. is wholly \
private one, OF which the gains go to Il
private purse, and Of which the benefits
can be partaken of only by those who
pay for them. With a touch of humor
the Chief Justice says
Unless there is something peculiar and trans
cendental IN the new saw mill to be removed
/ and in the grist mill to be erected and in the
| labor OF Messrs. Hutchins and Lane it must
| stand iii the same category with other saw
| mills and grst mills which are and have been
| and viii be built. and other aboriouS industries
which are pursued for private gain and emolu-
! ment. The lumber Of the inhabitants is awed
| at the usual compensation. Their grisS are
ground 1T the customary toll.
The court proceeds to say that q town
cannot raise money by taxation merely to
| loan again to individuals for their own
| purpose; that it makes no difference in
what form the loan is made, for it is the
taking OF property to dispose of tor priv
ate purposes, against the consent Of the
| owner, that constitutes the wrong; and
that the court and not the legislature is to
Judge whether proposed object be a
| public or private one The decision closes
as follows
The constitution of the State is its paramount
| and binding law The acquisition. possession
and protection of property are among the chief
ends of government To take directly or in
| directly, the property of individuals to loan TO
others for purposes of private gain and specula
ton. against the consent of those whose money
is thus loaned, would be to withdraw it from
| the lFotection of the constitution and submit it
to the will of the majority. 1t would be the
robbery and spoaton of those whose estates
or portion Of whose estates, are thus contis-
Gated. No surer or more effecual method
could be devised to deter from accumulation. to
diminish capital, TO render property Insecure
and thus to paralyze industry.
This will etfectually dispose of the
thousand and one schemes of the kind
which are and have been contemplated
and will exert an excellent influence bv
showing that there are some things which
even popular vote cannot accomplish,
and that he whose smooth, persuasive
voice leads the masses, cannot take the
property Of unwilling citizens, charm
he never So wisely. 1t says in effect thai
1
cnmulated property best understand its
safe and profitable investment
The reasoning Of this decision, as has
been observed, would cut off railroad,
from the benefit Of similar loans, inaSmucl
as they are for the profit of private owners
We think, however, that analogy is found
by the courts between railroads and high.
, ways sufficient to Justify the aid and for the
reason, among others, that railroads are il
legislative control, and that such contro
is exercised for public benefit-which il
/, not the case with enterprises like tina
against which this injunction is granted
Certain it is that the legality of municipa
, aid to railroads has been sustained by tn,
7 courts of the country. with one exception
: and that exception was overruled by the
: Supreme Court of the United States.