The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1873-05-22

L. -.
Of Fond du Lac County Eastern s stern District
Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion Of the court
T. county orders prOmissory notes OF the county
which are The foundation Of this suit We're all issued
payable TO the ShebOygan and Fond du Lac Railroad
Company or bearer They were issued in pursuance
Of act OF assembly Of the State, approved April TO-
1901 entitled IAN act TO authorize the county Of Fond
dS Lac 70 aid the completion of the Sheboygan and
Fond du Lac Railroad and aid the building Of railroad
from the city OF Fond du Lac to the CITY Of RipOn
BY that act the officers OF the county authorized
to issue the orders te the railroad Company In case
popular vote therein directed should be In favor Of
railroad aid and whether this act lawful exercise
OF constitutional power i the only question in the
stance that the Issue Of the orders was unauthorized
and void and that the act Of assembly, above referred
10. was an unconstitutional exercise OF legislative
power. No other question made az the trial. and
other IS presented TO rs for determination
Court the state has decided the Unauthorized
BY the Constitution 1t was thus ruled in Whiting
Fond du Lac eOnty- reported In the 18th Wisconsin,
iSS II that decision Is binding upon the Federal courts
N Il has established rule which are under obi
cations 70 follow, the matter Is settled. Il Is un-
doOb sedly true in general that this court docs follow
The decisions Of the highest ~ the States re-
speeding local question peculiar to Themselves
spectin the construction Of their own constitutions
' But il must be kept in mind that it is only decisions
upon local questions, those which peculiar the
several status adjndcaiiOns upon the meaning Of
the Constitution statutes Of state. which the Fed
ea courts adopt the rules for their own judgments
That Whiting y. Fond du Lac county was not deter
ninafson ~ any Question Of local law - manifest. II
Is not claimed to have been that Bnt i Is relied upon
a. having given q construction to the Constitution OF
the State Very plainly, however, such was not its
character or effect. Tue question considered by the
The moaning 81 provision o. the State Constitution
was considered Or declared. What was considered
was the uscef for which taxation generally, taxation By
any government might PC auteorHeo ana particularly
whether the construction and maintenance q nail
rsad owned By corporation, = a matter % public
concern Il was asserted what nobody doubts that
the taxing power q St..e extends no further than
70 raise money for pablo use, - distinguish nom
private 20 accomplish some end rs rairre
ana 4 was decided that building railrod, Il Il b.
constructed md owned by corporation thoIgh bull
hr arthotly q the STATE isnut matter IN which the
taxation u is aid. For this reascn vas held that
the state had no power 20 authorize The imposition o.
laxes . did in the construction q suel rroad and
r,ou-r 10 q, Ma snch aid Was Invalid. THIS vas de-
Termination g 10 iocE question, Qufeifn 81 stain
f',-- - lnsfitnficnal ccnslruction ID Wa not de-
~ =, ~. 49, ~ ~'.-.l i.r-1-4l
rnrer. rr frl O. might not Iuro1c lrflorIEt the
Imposition q taxes lo any Fnolc lsc. Nous whether
rational consifuli.on- y y q1estot q g PEA. iaI
II has a. mach felcre1ce 90 ttt Cqnsl.t1ttrn az Any
Other stats g. 3 nas % TIE SAFE 81 A.seqnsIn. ns
etI1Iith mntt b. sought. rlt % lEt NlcttlNr1 c 1nI
str. ttltf ITIhnnl' frI u Ile several nrIrfirIfs
~ ~ CrrIIE- IaF t4l-1| II .1fIl'N
l1hle a1i 49, er1 III IklI. ~ tsI,cl q
car tr.IIe1 'st.,IIsI fr.s' ~ af1 rs
tr 81 lfI.I 'tt - |.' .''5 ..N
|I-4t.tflf