The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1875-02-11

power maybe exerted the Othercan. We do
not care to inquire whether this is so or not.
The ouesti1n noE i, whether II railroad,
built and owned by a private corporation,
IS FOR public use because it is a highway,
taxes NAV not he imposed in furtherancs Of
that use. When, therefore, It is settled
that railroad is highway for public uses,
there car be no Substantial reason why the
power Of the STATE may not he exerted in
itsbehaf, ETC.
The second grould Of demurrer was that
the act was a fraud
The matter of the alleged fraud need not
be discussed in this paper, for the jury
found by their verdict that there was no
fraud. Il would be useless and ebjectless
to enter into a discussion of matter upon
which we have no facts.
But even il wha. is alleged against the
Legislature be true, how could it affect the
rights Of any body under the law On this
point, quote from the brief referred to:
If the judiciary may aDnul and set aside
an act of the Legislature, upon the ground
of improper motives and inducements oper-
ating upon the minds of individual legisla-
tors to favor particular measure, it would
seem that q like inquiry could be made in
respect to those who oppose it, and the
validity Of the act must depend upon the
uncertain conclusion TO be deduced from
such evidence as the court might be able to
command going to explain the motives of
Legislators, instead of its passage by the two
houses and approval by the Governor. If
the judiciary may do this, is il not the su-
penOr instead of a coordinate department Z
If it is not, may each Of the other depart
- l.
its judgments upon the ground of corrup-
ton of the Judge or bribery of a Juror ?
''Why not 2" We answer, for want of any
constitutional authority or jurisdiction to
do so. The Legislature may impeach the
corrupt judge, the court may try and pun
ish the legislator who has received bride,
but the former cannot annul the judgment
rendered, not the latter declare the act
passed to be void.
If the structure of the government did
not absolutely forbid such an inquiry by the
courts, policy, the general welfare of soci-
ETY., the purposes of justice, and the due
and safe administration of the law,
would preclude it. If the door to such an
inquiry was once opened, what would be
the bounds or limit either as to tine or sub
ject matter by which we are to be restrained
Obviously, the rights of parties not con-
nected with the case on trial, as we'll as the
character and motives of Legislators not be-
fore the court, and Ignorant even of the
proceedings, would often be passed upon
and irrevocably determined or irretnevably
ruined by such proceeding. Certainly the
adjudicated cases give no support to such 8
doctrine. For as is said by Judge Cooley
(Con. Law, 1865, although it has been
sometimes urged at the bar that the courts
ought to inquire into the motives of the
Legislature where fraud and corruption are
alleged, and annul their action if the ale
cations are established, the argument has in
no case been acceded to by Che judiciary,
and they have never allowed the inquiry tc
be entered into" (See Wright V. Duprees,
Ind, 800; McCullock v. The State, II
Ind, 451; Sunbury and Erie Railroad Com,
pany V. Cooper, 33 Penn. St., 279; Ia
Pdrte Newman, Cal, 5O2; Baltimore v.
State, 10 Md, $40; Johnson V. Higgins,
Met. (Ky.) 566; People V. Draper, II
New York, 545; Lamb V. Lloyd, A Penn.
St., $685.
1--WE are not, " says Chief Justice Chase
sat liberty to inquire into the motives o.
the Legislature. We can only examine into
its power under the Constitution" Ga
Parfe McCardle, Wall, 514.)
And says the Supreme Court OF Califor
mia: "Though corruption invade thu
halls of legislation, and the interest of TIT
people be betrayed by their chosen repre-
sentatives, and though the Executive ma!
prove faithless to his trdst, the constitu
tional authority of these functionaries, II
enact this statute would, nevertheless, b'
precisely as broad and deep in its measure
as though the act in question were admitted
to have found its inspiration in the wises
craftsmanship and the purest virtue. 1t i
Auaili ing therefore, that the counsel TO
| respondents should CUIn0- laore TO complain
that it is notorious that the facility of in
tiuencing legislative bodies is such that tn,
passage of any measure can be secured
through the usual appliances; for even if
unfortunately, this be true, it is also tru,
that we have no authority to reform thes
Legislative bodies, nor to call them to &C
count for the manner in which they havt
conducted the public business entrusted
to their hands," (The Stockton and Ursalii
Railroad Company V. The City of Stockton
Al Cal, 1881
Courts are not at liberty to inquire int
the proper exercise of power by the Legis
lature in case where the latter have beef
acting within their constitutional limits
They are bound to presume that the Legis
latuTe have exercised the proper discretion
1t is no part of the duty of the courts Il
inquire into the motives which actuated thu
Legislature in the passage of a given act
though fraud and corruption be alleged
The courts have no right TO impute to tn
Legislature any other but public motive
for their acts. Nor will the courts ever in
quire into the motives of the Legislature wheI
fraud and corruption are charged, and ar
null their action, or the statute, if thu
charges he proved true. People v. Draper
Is New York B., 545; Potter's Dwarris or
Constitutions, 1857
We are not made judges of the motives
of the Legislature, and the court will no
usurp the inquisitorial Office of inquiry int
the bona tides of that body in discharginy
its duties. (33 Penn. State r., 2S2; 8 Cal
R., $685.
In my judgment, the act of the Twelfth
Legislature chartering the Internationa
Railroad Company was constitutional ex
ercise of power by the Legislature, and b,
the decision of the Supreme Court tho com
pany has new to rely on the Legislature TO
the rights secured in its charter.
! w NJ WATToN