Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-11-10
0poRTANT DECISION.
,.,,oay { OHIO NUSTPAY THEIR
BE 'A'' PORTION
,,s,sss3 % Build the Shenandoah Val
,,,,-,,5-Ths Law IS Laid Down By
rs,s sh,ksoa IN the Case Ofths B.
60 vs. Jefferson County
,trs, orAs RsgIEsr.

..,.,,s.as, qrGs RsgIstsr.
~'' rsrpwx. November s.-On Mon
tH,1-b ,,-.,,ber l. lSS6, in the United
5.' init Court at Parkersburg, the
SIX - ,hs Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
- .,,,r q, V. the County OF Jefferson and
O'I' -. decided. Hon. John J. Jack
@'.,r ,,;rrrins from the Bench a carefully
- '''' ,,,j exhaustive opinion, in which
n. points arising upon demurrers
j. -. -, and the law bearing upon the
81 ,,r,d This case has been pend
y =, long time, commencing IS far
r..I though on q different bill.
.r,s. the right OF the county OF JET
- =, collect from the Baltimore <
? 20. As from all the rest Of the
'-', ,r,-s in that county, a revenue, for
-. mise of paving the county's sub
~, oithe couuty of Jefferson, in
NJ mounting to $3.50, 900, with the
=, thereon, to the construction
n. shenandoah Valley Railroad
h Jefferson county, road,
- m, Baltimore & Ohio Rail
,r,mmny claim to be q competing
T--l r,9d and which, for these rea-
F., o,rbt not to be taxed, along with
.,sr,ons in the county, to construct
~. Was argued by Hon. John A.
f.. 1.o.,p and Caleb A. BoggeSS, Esq, for
-. r.rfmore x Ohio Company, and by C..
w,r, of Charleston, and Forrest w.
,rr Prosecuting Attorney Of Jefferson
..,.r on the part of the defendants,
line entered in the cause sustains
.. ..narrcr to the bill, and suppplemen-
..,-ofpnplaiuant, and diSmisses them
with costs 10 the plaintiffs.
>,mrrh Of Importance to the State and
~. -eair:nalities in their right to levy
..frr,ct their revenue, whether from a
..-sl company or from a private indi-
rn. .,jayolyed, and so strongly, clearly
a.t.r,y is
THE LAW STATED
.-rtr Jackson, that we print his opin-
.r-m.'. It is as follows:
-. Ellt.,aore & Ohio Railroad Compa-
OF r-rorltion of the State of Maryland,
--.,G 10 against the County of Jetfer-
..>sro-pOrltiOn OF the State Of West
.-,.4. AMI Eugene Baker, late sheriff,
nj. o.. Hurst, acting Sheriff OF the
q. .r. lai citizens of the State, to en-
i restrain the defendant from col
-.g.uxt., which as the bill alleges,
--- .,.rI Tor the purpose Of aiding the
--t-.sion of the Shenandoah Valley
..rH. passing through the County of
+e--.u. rival corporation to that OF the
a,G
..,as bill the defendant demurs, and
.-u.,. T, nos heard upon the issue pre-
ra. 1r the demurrer.
.~rl.s hat from the bill, that the
...a.a.r OF West Virginia on the 25th OF
,aar, $50, passed An Act to author
-.... shenandoah Valley Railroad Com
aay To Construct their road through the
Sl,eo,Wcst Virginia, to She Potomac
-rs..aad, also. 10 authorize the Board OF
>.0-ryr,orS of Jefferson county, to sub
a,raa vote of the people. ut a special
r-r,o8. the question OF the subscription
u.ae CAPITAL Stock Of the company, "
.rr power OF the Court is invoked to
,g., the plaintiff, from what it alleges
~.-. THE unjust and illegal claim of the
,u,vo. Jefferson, to charge it with the
guent OF taxes TO discharge the princi-
3a anil interest OF bonds, amounting to
%iuUUO issued by said county to pay
brio, subscription 10 the capital stock OF
-- -ar.rndan, corporation.
denomination Of the Act juStiiies the
..l,ron that it was
.HE INTENTION or THE LEGISLATURES
"rler power upon IN existing corpora
,uo. created by the laws of 3 sister State
m&toHd her road through the county OF
...-nn IN this State.
tUas not the creation Of m original
operation. hut was Il grant ia the na-
wroia a License, to an existing one, to con-
%ret rs road, which appears to be the
la Purpo, uf the Act.
ia~ first question presented for the
m-,d'E,.ol ol the Court, Is the validity
" .as act. under which the subscription
"a, u14r II i claimed that this Act
ra.rg> mpre than one object, and more
@a one one object is expressed in the
"r, ant Is for TINT reason void, because
. 10 conflict with the 36th Section OF
.at lib Article OF the Constitution of West
'E-a@, adopted in 1853, which provides
,I. lo ltw shall embrace more than one
p'et which shall he expressed in the
10 this connection. we are informed that
~. Nl aDd 9TH Sections of the Act pro-
Vile .or q subscription to the Capital
>.'tN %, the road by Jefferson county,
'ls.l Is an object different from the main
9''ra,e OF the law, and is for this reason
-oNiogS 20 the Constitution.
10 support this position, the Court is
7s.Tel 20 Cooley on Constitutional Limi-
o~.oaS, o'..S, Pages =. -, 80 and 15l, and
sIip against Sheriff 4 3rd. West Virgin
"a l4sa5Sa.
"e cannot concur with counsel, that
...-' oi the authorities cited, suStains
'-7.' 'Iewut the law. Mr.. Cooley in dis
-,'>.2S this question, under the head OF
'"s ''.r 10 a Statute remarks that the
>.-..". purpose OF Constitutional prOvis-
S -' Oh tins character are accomplished,
,.. ,-.. j .1w has but one general object,
Is fairly indicated by the title.
'-' We" OF the tcxt-writer is well sup
ssr =, 7I u. ny Judicial decisions The case in
o. vest Va. 50 strongly relied on to
St'r' the position. that the Act of 1870
r. institutional we think, does not
,,',A II. The title Of the Act IL that
-. va, IN Act locating the County
5t OF Calhoun" "
Bl:
TIE LAW As PASSED
p.-, p..-',Aed a section which authorized the
a,r nv '' Supervisors of said county to sell
y gSroperty Sr at Arnoldsburg in the cOun-
,-,.I Int Court held this act void, for the
49,. 'AtI the Sd section contained an
III. ~, ~, ',ncr than the one expressed in
h. s,'''. ItaUthOrized the Board of Su-
l-,y5'S, 10 sell any county property At
-. ,..,..'.l,>narg, at that time the county
,5s,. without describing it OF restricting
r}s,L ay''on to the sale Of the property
v,,,.,,.; "'' properly connected with the
p,,Das1 [,,'su change in the county seat. This
a7l : was not expressed in the title,