The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1898-06-01


In all of them but two, il is believed
their validity has been sustained by tn,
highest local courts. 1t is not easy t.
resist the force of such current o.
reason and authority"
The decision in the case of the People
VS.. Salem rests on the assumption tina
corporation created for the purpose o
constructing railway to be owned anc
operated by the corporators, is private
corporation; and that the road wher
constructed will not be a public high
way, except in very qualified sense, as
it accommodates the travel and traffic OF
the public; and is therefore no more q
public object than any other private en-
terprise which also supplies a public
want or furnishes to the public con
venience.
To this proposition my reason refuses
its assent. In my opinion, the business
of railway, telegraph or telephone
company is, or at least should be, carried
on chiefly for the convenience and bene-
fit of the public. Doubtless those who
invest their money in such enterprises,
do so because of the pecuniary returns
which they expect, or at least hope to
receive. And it is no more than right
and just that they should be protected
in the enjoyment of their property to
the same extent that they would be if
they had invested their money in pure
ly private enterprise.
At the same time, the public interests
and the public welfare are involved in
the business of these corporations to
such an entent that the people have, and
ought to have the right to control the
business of corporations of this nature
by prescribing the rates of freight
charges and passenger tariffs, the issue
of stock and amount of dividends on
stock, as well as the speed of trains, fenc-
ing of tracks, signals at crossings, and
indeed to any extent that may be nee
essary to preserve the rights and protect
the interests of the public.
The view that the business of corpor-
ations of this nature is public and not
private, finds abundant support in de
cisions of courts of the highest authority.
In Pine Grove vs.. Tallcott, supra, it is
said by the supreme court of the United
States: Though the corporation was
private, its work was public, as much SO
as if it were to be constructed by the
state. But upon other grounds,
we think the public character of such
works cannot be doubted. Where they go
they animate the sources of prosperity,
and minister TO the growth of cities and
towns within the sphere of their influence.
Unless prohibited from doing so, mum
cipal corporation has the same power
to aid in their construction as to procure
water for its water works, coal for its
gas works or gravel for its streets from
beyond its territorial limits"
And in the civil rights cases, reported
in 100 u, S. 3, Mr.. Justice Harlan quotes
the language of the supreme
court of Massachusetts in Inhabitants
of Worcester vs.. Western r. Il. Corp, 4
Met. 56i, in reference to railroad, as
follows:
THE establishment of that great
is regarded as a public
work, established by public authority,
intended for the public use and benefit;
the use of which is secured to the whole
and constitutes therefore,
like a canal, turnpike or highway, pub
lie easement. 1t is true that
the real and personal property necessary
to the establishment and management of
the railroad, is vested in the corporation;
but it is in trust for the public"
Authorities to the same effect might
be multiplied indefinitely, but the fore
going may well suffice.
1t might be suggested in behalf of the
that nasmuch as the decis-
of the supreme court of Michigan have
been to the effect that municipal cor
porations in this state have no constitu-
tional right to issue bonds in aid of the
of railways, this court
ought TO follow those decisions. But the
of this court has not been
such as to encourage the adoption of
this suggestion. In the case of Stella b.
Warren vs.. Hugh Warren, tried in the
circuit court for this county, this court
was decidedly of the opinion that the
action could be maintained But mas
much as the supreme court of Michigan
had held otherwise in the case of
Mitchell VS. Mitchell, 40 Mich 50, this
court followed that decision and dis
missed the case. But this ruling was
reversed by the supreme court, and the
case of Mitchell vs.. Mitchell over-ruled.
And in the case of Robinson VS.. Finch,
heard i'm this court at the january term,
A. ID. 1897, this court was clearly of the
opinion that the will in question ought
to be construed as claimed by the com
plainant in that case But the supreme
court of this state had decided otherwise
in the case of Jones vs.. Jones, - Mich.
40l, and this court, following the latter
case, dismissed the bill of complaint.
But the decree of this court was revers-
ed by the supreme court and the case of
Jones VS.. Jones thereby over-ruled.
In view of these facts, do not feel
constrained to disregard my own firm
convictions and blindly follow decisions
which were rendered by the supreme