The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1872-1881, 1873-04-04

curing 70 mx-payers, out OF any pro
ceeds Of the lease, even the semblance o
an equivalent for the tax coerced from
him under the provisions of the bill will
simply be prepostcrous. In fact, no equiv
alent seems 10 have been intended, fb
no provision is made in the bill as :,
what shall be done with the rents for tn,
use Of the land and the means for Sc
curing il, IL any were intended, are moi
within the power Of the Board of Com
missioners. II is, therefore, prcsumahle
as before indicated, that the object O
this measure is to induce the counties Il
offer virtual donation Of the necessary
lands to secure the location Of the rout,
Of the road within their borders. But
even IL reasonable rental for the use o
property should he obtained, the objec
.tionable character of the measures con
tanned in the bill would not be obviated
The gravest objection to the legislation
which it proposes is that il is founded
on the presumption Of an unconditional
power Of taxation. This power of tax
alton is one the exercise Of which, inva
ding rs it does the sanctily of private
property and exacting from the hands OF
industry a portion of its earnings for the
public necessities, has always been one
Of the most delicate and insiduous char
acter, and the distinguishing oxcellency
Of representative and constitutional
government is the safeguard which such
governments provide against its abuse.
The odium OF its exercise is infinitely
aggravated when without the plea OF
public necessity il exacts from the citi
zen money whereWith TO enrich private
individuals, especially when associated
in some great corporation created for
their own private profit. Against such
abuse our own State Constitution has
carefully guarded. In its power to levy
and collect taxes from the people the
State is not probably restricted as TO
the amount or rate Of taxation but il
is certainly restricted in the objects for
which il may be exercised, for taxes are,
as properly defined, charges or contribu,
lions imposed by the Legislature upon
persons or property to raise money for
public purposes, or to accomplish the
public ends of the government. Such
being the only legitimate object of taxa.
ton, it follows that to impose tax or
authorize the imposition by any agencies
for private purposes, or to build up pri-
vate corporations. or to promote private
enterprises is wholly unauthorized. A law
therefore, authorizing taxation for any
other than public purposes is void; and
though a tax may pass through the
hands of public officers with strict re-
gard to all the forms Of law yet if it he
for private purposes, it is unconstitu-
tional.
The Cincinnati Southern railway is to
all intents and purposes a private cor
poration. II is organized for pecuniary
profit alone. The public as such has no
pecuniary interest in it, Its ultimate
interest is that Of a common carrier.
Legislature can not exercise any control
over its rights under the charter for the
reason that il is private and not pub
lie corporation; and although the pro-
posed road is one of great Importance to
the section Of the State through which
it may pass, and to the whole State, yet,
like all other railroad corporations, it is
projected in the interest Of the stock
holders, and not Of the public; and it is
clear to my mind that no incidental ben
fit arising to the community from the
operations of private corporation can
in any sense render it public one, or
justify the exercise Of the taxing power
in its behalf Such being the case, can
the Legislature confer upon a majority
Of the voters in any Of the counties
named in the bill the power to tax the
property of the minority, in order to
raise fund to purchase the right of way
for the road and grounds for the depots,
without any equivalent for the taxes
thus coerced from an unwilling and pro-
testing minorityY l am clearly of the
opinion that it can not he constitutional.
ly done. II was decided in the case of
Henson VS.. Vernon, in 1869, by the
Supreme Court of Iowa, "that the Leg
islature has no power to authorise II To-
cal majority to vote tax upon the peo-
pie Of district, the proceeds of which
are to be given or donated to a private
company organized for pecuniary profit,
and in which the taxpayer has no inter-
est, and for the taxes exacted receives
no return" The same doctrine is ap-
proved by our own Supreme Court in
the Cypress Pond Draining Company
case vs.. Hooper &c, and to the same
purport are decisions rendered by the
Supreme Courts of the State OF New
York. California, Oregon, Alabama,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, Miehi-
gan and perhaps other States. Our own
State Constitution, article 10, section 2
and IA, distinctly denies any power Of
taxation for purposes Of donation for
such purposes as indicated in the bill.
which, though called lease. ] am con-
strained to regard rs a donation. for,
tho hill nrovidas that