The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1883-04-21
THE OTTAWA WATER POWER BONDS.

ing the validity OF the Ottawa Wafer row
er Bonds, and which had been decided
against the bonds, had got re hearing,
The case was reargucd several weeks ago
by Eldrcdge aud j, D. Cation for the bond
holders and Lawrence, Campbell ~ Law
reace, and CITY Attorney Moloney, tor the
city, whereupon q final decision was rem
dcred IN favor OF the city. the unanimous
opinion Of the court being delivered by
Chief Justice Waite.
The first half of the decision Is taken up
in recital of the history Of the facts IN
yolved in the case; That The city OF Oita-
wa was incorporated in 1858 with the or
binary powers Of "a municipal cooperation
that the Ottawa Manufacturing Company
was incorporated IN 1851, and IN 1857 Il
hoard of commissioners was designated TO
subscribe 100000 Of its stock in behalf OF
the CITY; that no subscription was maze
under this act, but that in June lo6' Inc
city voted q bonus Of 100000 Of ts bonds
to w. II. W. Cushm2n to improve the
water power at Ottawa; sad bonds Deihg
delivered to Cushman and part Of those
bonds subsequently purchased OF Cush =
man by Eames and transferred by Eames
to Gary, and sued upon IN this case Men
ton is also made Of the case OF Ilacke'l
and the First National Bank OF Forts
mouth, who sued on certain of these bonds
and recovered, and then Judge Waite FRO
ceeds:
This case differs from those OF Hackett
and the First National Bank Of Ports
mouth, supra, in that Cary cannot claim
protection as bona-iide holder, while
iIackett and the bank could. Neither
Carey, nor Eames, nor the manufacturing
company, nCr Cushman, were purchasers
without notice. Carey and Eames both
paid value, but Carey bought after matsri
| ty, and 1t is expressly found that both he
and Eames had actual knowledge OF the
purposes for which the bonds were issued,
and of the contract with Cushman. In
der the circumstances OF this case, the
manufacturing company is chargeable
with knowledge of all the facts known to
Cushman, one of Its directors and the orig.
inal contractor with the city. The ques-
tions then to be considered are such as
may arise between the city and purchas-
or for value from Cushman with full
knowledge OF all the facts affecting the
validity of the bonds at their inception.
In Illinois, under the constitution OF the
state, the corporate authorities OF cities
cannot be invested with power To levy and
collect taxes except for corporate purposes,
This has long been settled. Weightman
v. Clark. 1903 u. $, $50, and numerous Hi
nos cases there cited. What may be made
a corporate purpose Is not always easy TO
decide, but it has never been supposed that
if legislative authority had not been grant
ed to Il municipal corporation to DO par
ucular thing, that thing could he pur-
pose of that corporation.
Municipal corporations are created to
aid the state government IN the regulation
and administration of local affairs. They
have only such powers of government as
are expressly granted them, or such as are
necessary to carry into elect those That are
granted No powers can be implied eX'
ICept such as are essential to the objects
and purposes OF the corporation as created
and established. Dill. on Nun. Corp,
sec. 80, Sd ed, and cases there cited. 10
the extent of their authority tlcy can bind
the people and the property subject to
their regulation and governmental control
by what they do, but beyond their corpo,
rate powers their acts are of no effect.
1t Is not claimed That express authority
was given the city OF Ottawa to develop, or
aid in developing, the natural advantages
of its rivers for manufacturing purposes,
and what we are now called on to decide
Is not whether, if slch a power had been
given, it would be within the general
scope OF the purposes of city government
and thus corporate purpose, within the
meaning of that term rs used In the consti-
tuition, but whether it has been granted by
the legislature. Much is said by the Su-
preme Court OF Illinois IN Taylor v.
Thompson, 40 H., II; Chicago, Danville
& Vinccnnes Railroad Co v. Smith, &c Ill.
26S; The People v. Deputy, II H., 655
Burr V. City of Carbondale, rs ILL.,, 400
People v Trustees of Schools, rs Ill, l31 ;
The Quincy, Missouri ~ Pacific K. Il. Co.
v. Morris, 81 H., 40; Bmslcy v. The
People, Id, 54i, and other cases OF like
character, as 10 what may be made cor
porate purpose, but these were all cases IN
which the legislative department OF Vie
government had undertaken To grant "A
power, and the question WAS whether the
power was one that could right!ully be
made purpose of a municipal corpora
| ton. No matter how much authority
there may be in the Legislature TO gran, a
particular power, it the grant has not been
made the city cannot act under It.
AS power IN municipal corporation 10
borrow money and issue bonds therefor
implies power to levy a tax for the pay
ineut of The obligation that is incurred, uu'
! less the contrary clearly appears, tRalls
Co. V. The United States, l05 u. 5, 1881 II
follows that the power contained IN the
charter to borrow money did not authorize
| the issue of the bonds in this case, unless
they were issued for corporate purpose,
there being constitutional prohibition
against taxation by the city, except for cor
porate purposes. The question then Is
whether the city has been invested with
power to raise money by public taxation
to be donated to private persons or private
lcorporauons rs bonus for developing the
water power in the city or its vicinity LOT
manufacturing purposes
The charRr confers all the powers usu-
ally granted To II city for the purposes OF
| local government, but that has never been
lon &c itcall Ia antbnr,vn tpxGa for