The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1874-05-28

Wutu Vic Dtalc uuUeTIOCR 10 CAtItlSC tut
right of eminent domain in aid oftheir
construction. It was conceded that this
could rot be done unless the road, when
completed, would be public property. A
State could not take the land of its citi.
zen against his will,except for public use
This led to the question. is railroad a
public highway? And the courts Of all
the States, and, finally, the Supreme
Court Of the United States, have held
that railroads are public highways, and
may be regulated BY the Legislature, like
other public property.
In the recent case Of Olcott VS.. fond
du Lac county, Is Wallace, 678, coming
here from our own state, the court says:
"That railroads, though constructed by
private corporations ana owned by them,
are public highwaya, has been the doc
trinc of nearly all the courts, ever since
such conveniences FOR passage and trans
portation have had any existence, y
And the reason why the use Las always
been held public one, is thai such
road is a highway, whether made By the
government itself, or by the agency of
corporate bodies, or even by individuals,
when they obtain their power to Construct
it from legislative grant, M
When this question came for the first
time before the Supreme court CT South
Carolina, at that time enc of the ablest
courts in the Union, in Railroad VS.. Chap,
peli, Rice S. c., the court, after exam
ming the subject AZ length, conclude as
follows: III 4sas9as uaa ls3
"May not.our railroads, then, be fairly
considered In character and objects as in
.ternational and therefore public high
ways" Again the court say: "Bob take
another point of view which I cannot
help thinking of lasting Importance.
Srch railroad as ours should be held as
highway, on account Gifts great objects,
and for the same reason to be held unner
public control Is it not wise to hold
such company, as the guardians or les
sees of great highway, endowed with a
public franchise, yet subject to the con-
troll which their purposes indicate as pee
essary and proper for such an establish
ment, and which the general right to use
the road absolutely requires i? Such a
road must be held as part of the do
main, farmed out to individual men for
its practical administration and order
alone. And if placed aloot from such
control, it would inevitably become sus-
pected of partiality and odious to the
people" t.e III M..m.
In Worcester VS.. Railroad, 8 Met. $50
The court constituting statute which ex-
empted public property from taxation,
carefully considered the legal character
of railroads, and Shaw, G. j., in deliver
ing the opinion, says: au. a5.@
"The only principle on which the legis.
lature could have authorized the taking
of private property for its construction,
without the owners consent, is that it
was for the public use. Such has been
held to be the character 'ofa turnpike
corporation, although there the capital is
advanced by the shareholders, and the
income goes to their benefit, (Com. vs.
Wilkinson, 10 Pick. 1859. It is true that
the real and personal property necessary
to the establishment and management of
the railroad is vested in the corpora
tions, but 1t is in trust for the public"
"The company have not the general
power Of disposal incident to che absolute
right of property they are obliged to
use 1t in a particular manner, and for the
accomp lishment of well-defned public
object, etc."d9 h+aia1 adI ri hae -''' T
.sn@a .t..e.~,4 Has ~
"Treating the railroad, then, as pub
ic easementthe workslerected by the COR
poratlonas public works intended for pub
lie use, we consider it we'll established
that, to some extent at least, the works
necessarily incident to such public ease
ment are public works, and as such ex-
|empt from taxation. Such we believe
has been the uniform practice in regard
Ito bridges, turnpikes. and highways, and
their incidents, and also in regard to
other public buildings and structures of a
like kind, as State-houses, forts and ar
senals. schOOl-houses and N0ererrllv ~