The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1875-03-05
BONDS GONE UP.
The u. -. Supreme COHr1 his.
poses Of Private Subsidies.

The u. -. Supreme COur1 his.
poses Of Private Subsidies.
1t Will be remembered that two
cases were tried before Judge Dillon
in the U. S. Circuit Court, for this
district, viz:
The citizens Savings and Loan AS
ISOLATION of Cleveland, Ohio, vs..
The city of Topeka and the Com
mercial National Bank of Cleve-
land, Ohio, We. the city of lola.
The decision of Judge Dillon in
The latter case, is published in full
as an appendix in 9th X ansas. On
Feb. LIST, 1875, the Supreme Court
of the United States, in an elaborate
and as we believe, able opinion, af-
firm the decisions of Judge Dillon.
Nelson j., writing the opinion OF
the court holds the following:
IA statute which authorizes towns
10 contract debts or other obligations pay.
able In money implies the duty 10 levy
taxes TO pay them, unless some other fund
or source OF payment Is provided.
LII there be no power in the legisla-
ture which passed such statute TO au-
thoriZe the levy Of taxes In aid OF the
purpose for which the obligation is to be
contracted, the statlte is void, and so are
the bonds or other forms Dr contract bas-
ed on the statute.
3.-There is no such thing in the theory
OF our governments, state and national, as
unlimited power in any of their branches.
The executive, the legislative and the jul
dicial departments arc all of limited and
defined powers.
4.-There arc Limitations OF such pow
ers which arise out of the essential nature
Of all free governments. Implied reser-
walton OF individual rights, without
which the social compact could not exist,
and which are respected by all govern
ments entitled to the name.
6.-Among these is the Limitation Of the
right of taxation, that Ii can only be used
in aid of a public object, an object which
Is within the purpose for which govern
ments nre established.
ct cannot, therefore, be exercised in
aid OF enterprises strictly private, for the
benefit ofindividuals, though in a remote
or collateral way the local public may be
benefited thereby.
Though the line which distinguishes
the public use for which taxes may be
assessed from the private Use for which
they may not, Is not always easy to dis
Germ, yet 1t Is the duty OF the courts,
where the case falls clearly within the
latter class, 10 interpose when properly
called on for the protection Of the rights
of the citizen, and aid to prevent his pri-
waite property from being unlawfully APP
propriated to the use OF others.
S.-A statute which authorizes a town
TO issue its bonds in aid of the manufac-
turing enterprise of individuals is void.
because the taxes necessary 10 pay the
bonds would, If collected, be u transfer of
the property OF individuals TO aid In the
project Of gain and profit OF others, and
not for public use, in the proper sense
OF that term.
0.-And in u suit brought on such bonds
or the interest coupons attached thereon,
the circuit court properly declared them
void.
The aboYe is the opinion of eight
of the Judges. Justice Clifford
dissents; but as we understand him,
it is not so much that he thinks the
bonds are valid, if the question
were up for the fest time, as that
he regards the main opinion in
these cases, in conflict with princi-
pies heretofore announced by the
same court, in sustaining bonds in
aid of railroads. We are not surc
that his criticism is wholly unwar-
ranted, for.to our mind the reason
ing advanced by Judge Cooley, in
Detroit 81 Howell railroad, VS.. the
town of Salem, 20 Mich, 452, has
never been answered, although it is
buried out of sight by what the
profession term weight of author
ity." We suppose this decision set
ties forever, at least for our day,
the fate of all bonds for private en-
terDrises.