Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1881-06-09
designated the location of the proposed

halfway lnLeTS6cJS C06 west line or said
township" Neither of the connecting
railways here mentioned is in existence
but only in contemplation, the former
having been authorized to be built by
Somerset township. Belmont county, by
an act of the Legislature, similar to the
one now under consideration, passed on
the 18th of March, 1880. So that it is
quite evident that the legislative intent,
as well as that of the Trustees of Beav-
er township, was to make the proposed
road link in a more extended route or
line of railway. The same intent is
manifested in the fact that no provision
was made for the operating of the pro.
posed road by the township, but power
only was given to lease the same on
compilation TO any person or persons or
company which would conform to the
terms and conditions which the Trus-
tees should prescribe; and in the event
that the road. would not be completed,
with the expenditure of money author
lied, scheme for its sale was provided
by act by foreclosing the mortgage CIV
en- to secure the bonds, so that the road
after the expenditure of $4,000, might
pass into the hands of another person
or persons or company" Otherwise why
mortgage the road, when the faith of the
township, by the terms of the statute,
was pledged to the payment of the
bonds (which pledge included not only
the property of the township, but all
taxable property within the township.
That a sale under the mortgage would
be the probable result might well be an
ticipated, from the fact that the maxi
mum sum authorized to be expended, as
we know from the history of railroad
building in this State, would not be suf-
fieient to iron the track, to say nothing
about the expense of the right of way,
the grading, the tying, or the eQuiping
of the road. True, it may be said, this
case is submitted on the pleadinGs. and
the averment of the petition that the
means provided are insufficient to build
the road and pay for the right of way, is
met by an averment in the answer, that
''the sum of $4,000 will, in fact, be suf-
ficient to construct the line of road as
contemplated and provided by said act." !"
This averment in the answer. does not
cover the allegations of the petition and
besides, the main question is, What was
contemplated and provided by the act /?
Was it contempiatedthat complete and
independent railroad should be cOnstruc-
ted by the township We think not,
and therefore, without speculating as to
the manner in which it was intended
that the result should be accomplished,
it is quite evident, to our minds, that
the legislative intent, as well as that of
the Trustees of the township, was that
the proposed road should in some man
.ner and by some means become consoli-
dated or connected with other roads, as
part of more extended line of railway
in order to make it all subservient to
the public welfare, and that in no other
way could it be made of public utility.
Such being the scheme and operation
of this statute, it is clearly in violation
of section 8. article S, Of the Constitu-
tian, which provides: 81 The General As
sembly shall never authorize any county,
city, town or township, by vote of its
citizens or otherwise, to become stock
holder in any joint stock company, cor
pOratiOn, or association whatever, or to
raise money for, or loan its credit to, or
in aid of. any such company, corporation,
or association" In relation to this sec
tion, cannot do better than adopt the.
language of c. j. Scott, in Walker vs..
Cincinnati, 21, Ohio st. "a. He said:
"The mischief which the section inter-
diets is business partner ship between
a municipality subdivision of the
State and individuals or private cOrpo-
rations or associations 1t fOrbids the
union of public and private capital or
credit in any enterprise whatever. In
no project originated by individuals,
whether associated or otherwise, with
view to gain, are the municipal bodies
named permitted to participate in such
manner as to incur pecuniary expense
or liability. They may neither become
nor furnish money or cred
it for the benefit of parties interested
therein. Though joint stock companies,
and associations only are
named, we do not doubt that the reason
of the prohibition would render it appli- !
cable to the case of single individual.
The evil would be the same, whether the
public suffered from the cupidity of
single person, or from several persons
associated together" And / will add, ]
that it makes no difference whether the |
scheme for the union of public and pri- |
vate money or credit originates with the |
party or parties representing the public |
DR. private interests. In short, the thing |
prohibited is the combination in any |
form whatever of the public fund. or
credit of any county, city, town, or town. |
ship, with the capital Of any other per-
son, whether corporated or unincorpora-
ed, for the purpose OF promoting any
enterprise whatever.
From these views it is plain that the
statute before us manifests an intent to
10 that indirectly which, done directly,
would constitute palpable infraction
IF the Constitution, for which reason it
must be declared imperative and void.
In eonclusion ] must say that 1t had
been sought to maintain the validity of |
The statute under consideration upon the
principles decided in the case of Walker
vs.. Cincinnati, 81, Ohio st. II. But as
We have shown the scheme Of this stat
ate to be essentially different from the
,ne considered in that case, it is not ne
,essary for US to review the doctrines of
hat decision. On the other hand, We
We conceive the principles involved in
his case to be substantially similar to
hose in the case of Taylor VS.. Commits
,ioners of Ross county, % Ohio st. %, in
which the statute was held to be uncon-
For reasons entirely salts
factory to the Court then and now, we
sre content TO follow thesdoctrine of the
after case in disposing of the case be-
lore Us. And while we regret the ne
:essity of differing with the legislative
department. of the government in re-
,pect to the constitutionality of one of |
heir enactments, we will express the
hope that in the future, as in the past,
out few occasions may arise for such |
Inference.
Perpetual injunction granted as pray
ID for.
Conquer thyself. Till thou hast done
hat thou art slave, for it is almost as
well to be in subsection to another's ap-
petite as thy own.