The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-07-16

there was no law under which private
corporations could condemn.
But the defendants contended, in
which they were sustained by the
court, that the fair is a public enter
prise, n consequently condemnation
proceedings can be entered into under
the Missouri law. The decision is Of
far-reaching Importance and of general
interest. The court says in part::~
This corporation organized under
this act, by the terms of the articles
and of the act appears to be a private
corporation. 1t is composed of stock
holders who subscribed for stock in
the corporation in the manner in which
ordinary private corporations are
formed. Justice is proverbially blind,
but there is no legal presumption that
courts are blind to the common knoWl-
edge and experience of mankind. That
common knowledge and experience
teach that exposition corporations of
the character here under consideration
are not ordinarily organized with the
expectation of gain to those who sub
scribe for their stock. The experience
of the past teaches that they do not
bring remuneration to those who pur
chase their stock. The purchasers of
this stock or the subscribers to it took
their stock in view of this fact.
wv SISdutECQ lOI 0diUs
"It cannot be presumed that they
subscribed with the expectation of pri-
vate gain. 1t must be presumed that
the intention and purposes with which
they put their money n this institu-'
ton was to sacrifice something of their
substance for the use of the public. A
| court of equity may look through the
form of the corporation to the fact, the
truth, and the fact is and the truth is
| that this cOrnOratiOn WAS NOT ORGAN
lied for private gain, but for the pur-
poses specified in the act under which
it was organized,
ut is said on the part Of the COM
p%lainantS that the property of this cor
poration is not devoted to a public use,
because there is nothing in the act
which entities the public to use it,
nothing which gives them a right to-it,
and nothing in the act which subjects
the course of its action to the regula-
ton of the legislature, and that these
are the tests by which a public corpor-
alton must be distinguished from a pri--
waite corporation. 1t is true that, the
act under which this defendant was
incorporated will be searched in vain
for such reservations. But is the.
fact that these reservations are not
contained in the act conclusive evil
dence that they do not EXIST The
earlier charters of the railroad com
panies did not contain in them the ex-
press restriction that their acts should
be controlled by the Legislature, or
that all the members of the public
should be entitled to the use of their
property without unjust diScrimina-
ton. The acts under which the eleVa-
tor companies in the state of Mime
sofa were organized contain no such
restriction, nor die the laws OF the
state, and yet the supreme court held
that these corporations whenever they
employed a public utility were subject
to the regulation of the legislature and
must be deemed to hold it for the pub
lie use. Indeed, it nay be stated as a
general proposition that whoever takes
and employs a public utility takes lit
subject to the right of the public to
use it, to the right of the legislaturerto
regulate it's use.
Public Money Voted.
1.-THE congress of the United States
has appropriated a large sum of money
for the use CT this corporation. If this
corporation is to use this money for
a private use that money cannot be
properly raised by taxation. The city
of st. Louis has appropriated a large
sum of money for the same purposes.
The legislature of the state of Mis-
souri,, and the legislatures of other
states lave made like appropriations.
i Constitutional amendments have been
| passed by the people Oh the SLdL6U& Oh
Missouri to authorize the appropriation
and use Of this money, and it is evident
that the membe of congress-, the
members of the legislatures ofsrthe
states, the governing powers of the
city of st. Louis, were all of the opin-
ion that they were -appropriating this
~ to a public and not to a private
use. If they thought otherwise, they
would nave violated their oaths when
they made the appropriations.
These considerations are not on
elusive. The question is to be determ-
ined by a consideration of the act. But,
like the opinions of learned counsel
and the forceful arguments which have
been presented upon one side and the
other, they are persuasive arguments
in support of the view that this was a
public use to which all the property
of the corporation was to be devoted
and a public purpose for which the corr
poration was established.
Is Useful to All People.
Turning again to the act of incor-.
poration in the light of the action of
the congress of the United States, of
the legislatures of the states and of the
people of the city of st. Louis, one
cannot fail to be deeply impressed with
the thought that the purpes of this
corporation and the. use of the Defend
ants property are educational, instruc-
tive, useful, not to the stockholders
more than to others, but useful to
everyone of the public, useful to the
public at large to the same extent and
in the same measur as to the indi-
vidual stockholders of the corporation.
The exhibition of the products of the
arts, industries n manufactures and
of the soil, mine and sea, for the pur-
pose of promoting improvement in the
arts and sciences, professions and
trades, cannot fail to be useful, not
to the stockholders of this corporation
alone, but to all who behold it.
Fair Inspires Patriotism.
"Such an exhibition cannot fail to
instruct them all in the art of higher
and better living. And the
grafton of the great historical event
which induced the promotion of this
corporation cannot fail to teach, not
the stockholders and officers of this
corporation alone, but all the citizens
of the republic that her destiny is not