The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1873-03-08

propostioncd To the energy With which u u
repeated. There 10, indeed. . considerable
Lnumber ut cases which for diverse and r..
reconcilsble reasons have supported local
taxation for objects Of general interest, but
many of these cases have not the least rele.
vsncy 10 the point here contested. Such
cases, for instance, TSomas '. Liond, "a
Wendell, o.. and As,siek v AmAerss, IL
Allen. 504. where local communities, nm the
ground Of special local benefit, have been
allowed or compelled to tax themselves in
aid of the public works or buildings owned
| by the state, arc not 1t oil analogous.
Where the state itself il u receive the BEN
eft of the taxation, in the increase Of its
public fund. or the improvement OF lie prop
erty. there can he no doubt Of the public
character Of the purpose. Such of the
other judicial decisions rs IRE best reasoned,
J rest plainly upon the doctrine that the state,
having within itself unlimited authority 10
aid works Of internal improvement, may
use its municipal bodies as its agencies for
that purpose doctrine which Is prccluded
CAPCSo tVViS"u III We NoNSSiSutWu VA
this state. II VIC set aside these two
classes of cases very little real authority re.
mains 10 support the doctrine commended
for. The right to vote municipal aid to
railroads has been vigorously disputed from
the beginning, aud many eminent jurists
have always denied it, I regard with the
utmost respect the courts which have pre-
coded US In considering this question, but
We should he wilfulIy bind if We shut our
! eyes to the fact that there have always
been circumstances surrounding the consId
Grafton OF this subject which have not been
favorable 10 . complete and unbiased ex>
preston of views. 1t is easy to follow III
apparent authority without stopping to
question its soundncss, when the popular
desire is in the same direction; and upon
this subject there arc repeated decisions
which do not BY any new reasoning, or Ivy
any attempt to examine the suject on prin-
ciplc, add to the authority of those which
preceded them When cases fOllcv IN line
for no better reason than because they have
case 10 follow, the authority is TO bc found
in the first decision, and not by counting up
the number in tho line. The leading cases
upon the subject has been the Pennsylvania
case Of Sha,pless Y. Mayor, 81 Penn. ST..
147. and real the result, in the language of
the same court, in subsequent case. I'VE
KNOW" say the court. ''thc history Of these
municipal and county bonds; how the leg.
islaturc, yielding to popular excitement
about railroads. authorized their issue; how
grand jurors and county commits sioncrs and
city officers were moulded To the purpose of
spectators; how recklessly railroad officers
abused the overweight confidence of the
public, and what burdens and debt and tax.
alton have resulted To the people. A
moneycd security was thrown upon the
market by the paroxysm of the public
mind" Diamond V. Laurence county, 81
Penn. St., 253. The learned judges were
quite too sanguine when they declared that
the like could never happen again; but we
are not concerned with their prophecy
% much Is We are with their mani>
fest Consciousness that those evils have
come from provision of the law. The
best judgment Of the legal profession. 80
far as I have been able to judge, has always
been against the lywfulncss Of this species
Of railroad aid, and there has been steady
and persistent protest which no popular
clamor could silence against the decisions
which supported it. This protest has of
late been growing stronger instead Ut faint.
er, and If tho recent decisions alone are re.
gardcd, the authority IL clearly with the
protest. But whether this is 50 or not Is
not of controlling authority here. We are
embarrassed by no decisions in this state,
and arc ut liberty, therefore, to consider this
question on principle; aud when the legal
principle which governs case stands out in
bold relief, II is manifestly more in accord
with proper discharge of judicial duty that
we should reach to it with directncss, than
that We should shut our eyes to the prin-
ciple and blindly follow where others have
blindly led.
have not deemed it important to con.
slider any OF the minor objections to this net,
prcfcrring, as l do, to zeal with the main
and fundamental infrmi,y. The case be.
fore Us 10 that Of private corporation dc.
mauding gratuity which has been voted
to it in township meeting upon the sssump.
lion tina: its business operations and facili.
ties will incidentally benefit the township.
I do no. find that the meeting possessed any
inherent authority to pass such vote, or
that any such authority could have been
conferred uponit. The legislature could not
confer upon the majority there convened
jurisdiction to measure for the minority the
demands upon their gratitude and liberality
Individuals, as such, must make their own
donations, aud decide for themselves how
far any proposed enterprise Of other indi.
viduals can properly and justly. in view of
the benefits they may receive thercfrom,
demand their aid and assistance.
AZ, therefore, 1t appears that the first sud
most fundamental maxim Of taxation ID
violated by the act on this question, It be-
comes superduOus 10 consider whether the
act would also violate the maxim of appor.
tionn,cnt, or he obnoxious in tsappllcaiion.
because the burden, even If public, could
not also he regarded Is local and peculiar ~
this township Equally superiluous Is It q
consider in detail the several express pro.
visions of the state constitution which the
respondents suppose 10 be violated. II the
authority exercised is not within the taxing.