The Rock Island daily Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1872-1873, 1873-05-15
JUDGE PLRAsANrys DxcIsIoN ON THE
ROCK ISLAND FERRY CASE.
JONI W. SPENCER & I
THOMAS j. ROBINSON

tne OWnerS Ol the Terry frAnchlSe between
the Cities Of Rock Island, III. and Daven-
port Iowa; that they selected for the
landing at said City Of Rock Island point
on the levee at the foot Of Washington St.
convenient for the public and in all re-
spects suitable for the purpose-which
they have improved at some expense and
used for many years, and which they de.
sire and have the right TO retain that said
City, by resolution Of the Common Coun.
chi, has declared the point at the foot Of
Eagle st. TO be the general landing place
Of their boat and by notice from the May
or required them 20 remove TO that point,
and threatens, upon noncompliance to use
the police and such other force as may be
necessary, in aid Of the Harbor Master, TO
effect such removal. They allege that the
landing at Eagle St, for reasons set forth,
would be announcement and even dangerous
10 the public, and therefore injurious 10
themselves as owners of the franchise, and
70 prevent the threatened removal by force
they pray an injunction.
Upon general demurrer 10 the Bill two
main questions arise. First, DO com
plAinants show a right TO the ferry fran
ohise, and, Second, if so do they show a
right 20 determine the particular place Of
the viii OF the City.
Defendants insist that the Several Acts
of the Legislature pleaded, and under
which compliments claim, except the first,
were unconstitutional and therefore void.
II appears by the Bill that at the time
Of its exhibition, compliments were, and
that they and their assignors for more
than twenty years had been in the actual.
a..I ". r IL.
franchise, claiming under said Acts-that
the said city during all this period had
recognized their right as claimed, and has
now formally set apart place within its
limits for the landing Of their boats in the
exercise Of that right If after such pos
session and recognition-and in this pro
ceeding TO which the State is not party
the City can be heard 10 question the
validity Of these Acts it does so solely
upon the alleged insufhciency Of the titles
which the Legislature saw fit 10 prefix to
them.
The original grant was by the Act Of
Feb. %, lS4l, entitled An Act TO author
ize John Wilson TO keep ferry across the
Mississippi River" against which no OBJ
lection is urged. This however, was for
only ten years. 1t was in terms extended
for further period of ten years by an Act
approved Feb'y ., lS49, which was entitled
An Act for tie relief of John Wilson.
But meanwhile a new Constitution had
been adopted which went into effect on the
LIST April lS4S, and contained q provision
that no private or local law which may
be passed by the General Assembly shall
embrace more than one subject and thai
'shdtt be expressed On the tile Art III
90 and the question presented is, whether
or not the title-'An Act for the relief Of
John Wilson 90 expressed, within the
meaning OF this provision, the subject
Of an Act which extended to him for fur
ther term the grant Of a ferry franchise
The Constitution required that every
private Act should have title and that
the title should express the subject Of the
Act, but il did not define what was meant
by the subject nor prescribe what
should be deemed sufficient expression
OF It, Ii wisely If not necessarily left the
determination of this TO the discretion of the
Legislature subject only TO correction by
the Courts in clear cases. BY private
Act l understand one that relates to a
particular person or persons and net to tie
public at large and by the title of an
Act some brief indication of its object,
character or contents prefxed toit
In view of the great variety of possible
private Acts, the difficulty Of framing such
a general definition, which should
allow any substantial distinction
las 10 fullness Of expression) between
the title and the act, and yet would not
ON the one hand invalidate large proper
ton OF such Acts, nor on the other make
the Constitutional requirement Of no effect
must be obvious. Ii the trainers of the
Constitution would not attempt it in ad-
vance OF the passage OF any such acts by
the Legislature, with much more reason
may the courts hesitate 10 do so after so
many have been passed The wiser course
Tor them doubtless is to determine each
case as presented, upon its own facts, and
to be guided TO Judgment by the considera-
ton OF the mischief which the Constitution
was designed 10 prevent and firm purpose
70 give practical efficacy to the provision.
The title-"for the relief of" a party
named or described in it's a very fami-
liar one, being found among the Acts of all
our American Legislatures and of those of
Treat Britain and her Colonies at almost
every session. since Legislative Acts began
10 be entitled The frequency of its oc
currence would indicate its application to A
class and such has been the fact-the
name or description of the party in il
alone making it specific. Hence this title
has come 10 denote, Of itself, A private
Act and for Acts really and strictly pri-
vatC has immemorially, so far as | am ad-
vised, been used aud accepted without OBJ
lection. Aud why not? What harm can
arise from il p? Such anAct eonfers uponthc
party so named OF described and upon none
other some right which he did not before
possess for another constitutional principle |
would forbid its taking any away without |
his consent but does not diyest or impair 4
any right Of any other, and the title is no. |
uce OF so much at least 10 all who read ar
hear it. 1t truly, though not particularly,
states the character and object of the Act |
and ul the whole of it. And while il NAV
be true that a bill bearing this title would |
escape some opposition that would 1
be encountered if the title indicated also
Me KIND OF relief afforded, it is probably /
as true that blu bearing the latter title
would also escape some which would be en-
countered IL it further Indicated az me
means by which 1t was proposed TO afford
it.
This reasoning would require that the
Bill in all its details should be set forth in |
the title--thus Obliterating the distinction
between the title and the Act which the
Constitution clearly recognizes.
To illustrate by the case at bar lift be
said that the Legislature might be willing
TO grant some kind of relief to John vii
sou, but not to do 50 by giving him right
to keep a ferry, IT may also be said that
they might be willing to grant him right
10 Keep terry but not on this river, or be-
tween these points on it, or upon the
terms or conditions prescribed. In short,
the objection is not that the title here does
not express the subject, but that the expires.
sion is too general.
think it was for the Legislature alone
TO determine how general OF how particular
1t should be, provided that the subject of
the Act was expressedinth the title and il en-.
brdeed nothing more or else than was so
expressed. The title must be false, or true
only in part and therefore delusiye, 60 war
rant the Court in holding the Act void
under the provision Of the Constitution.
Nothing Of this character is suggested
here. When the Act Of IS49. was passed
John Wilson had for eight years been in