, 1875-06-21
JUDGE DILLON ON RA1LRoaDs.

The New York Nation has boon misled into
doing Judge D1L1oN, United s.atoa Circuit
Judge, serious injustice by the republication
from the Burlington Ha'okxye of apparent
discrepancies betweon recent decision on
tho Iowa Railroad law aud former decision
involving the status Of railways rendered by
Judge Dillon when be was Ohef-Justice Of
tho Supreme Court Of Iowa In his Into do
cision ho said TINT railroads are "improyel
highways, whose life il due To the exorcise Of
tho State right Of eminent domain and taxa-
tiou," md in tho former that railroad compa.
MES are "mere private corporations yolunta-
rily organized for pccuniary profits" whose
ultimate business Ia "that Of mere common
oarrier." Aftor quoting these dlsjointed sen-
tencea from tho two decisions, one rendered
in 1863 md tho other in 1876, the Nation,
without recalling the full context Of either,
assumes the responsibility Of publishing the
following sovera stricturoa upon Judge
D111oA:
Ths explanation ahs uncha.'tsbIs foreign Investor
Will ba opt 10 put, NO fear this sxtraosdinsry spee-
Imam of judicial wahbling within the short space OF
NIX years, 10 that In lBdJ the lava farmers wsrs su-
asged In vesy dscsodltabo attempt TO repudate tho
N"A @AA IoAAt$ GoAuA WHICH nAu QeoQ AQHAQ IL &Al
Of railroad construction, md Ch!os-1ustics DILLON
was ready to help thom, by laying down ona theory Of
railroad pFopsrty that in 1875 they engaged In
another attempt. equally dtshonsat to force The rat.
Toads 10 carry tha!r produce ii non.paJ1pg rates,
and Judge DILLON u sosdy to help thsu, By lsy-
Ing down another theory OF railroad property d.
sary opposed to tho former oae Wo a1s Gid 10 sec
tho Aawksvs warning the people Of lows o tho effect
Of thsas performances on the development Of The
State. Jndga DILLoH may help thetn to chest tho
present holders Of railroad propetY but hs cAnnot
hslp than 10 got mora railroads butlt,
Now, Judge DILLON Ia ono Of tho ablest,
fairost, and clearestheadsd iurists In the
country, and It was neither just nor wiao to
thus summari1y dispose Of him without look
Ing up tho records of tho two cases which,
We believe, clear him even OF tho auspioon
Of Inconsistency, and certainly OF tho serious
charge OF prostttntIng the Bench to Tho In.
tsresta OF ono class for tho purpose OF d.
fraueing nnotlor. In the decision Of 1869
which Judge Dt1loS rendered from the Su.
prone Bench Of tho State the issue was, we
believe, whether there was power To tar the
people Of the State for the purpose OF giving
tho psoceeda Of the levy to rnilsoad corpora.
tions, aud Ao took tas broad ground
that the authority Of the State to
levy taxos wss confined to puhlio corpo.
rate purposes. In impressing this principle
ls may have uaed language which may now
appear to conflict with the late decision but
1t must be remembered that he WINS only
called upon to contemplate the railroads In
their character Of private corporations aud,
II tho broad principle he then hid down had
been followed throughout the Western States,
there are many local Governments that would
now bs the richer BY suillions Of dollars.
In the later case, however, hs vas called
upon to yisw railroad corporations In their
public character, and then he followed the
nttezancs Of tho United States Supreme
Court In designating them - "iuproysd
highways" He also defined very clearly and
satafsotarily the difference between ths pub.
10 ohas&eter and private ohssaoter Of rail.
foads ,-holdins thas u pdrs&s propaxty ahsy