Evening journal., 1912-07-19
SUPREME COURT DECIDES
THE DUPONT BOULEVARD
LAW is CONSTITUTIONAL

legislature that he would. by and
through a company TO be organized
by him, do the various things au-
thorized by the Act. We may assume
that the occasion. and the request,
for the enactment OF the law we're
special. but that does not necessar-
lily determine the character of the
Act-whether special OF general.
Very many, and perhaps most, gen
eral laws ae suggestedr to the legis-
lature, and their passage, In sense,
secured, on account of special condi-
tions existing at the time. Very
often the necessity for a general law
is not discovered until some individ-
ual interest or desire is affected or
prompted A certain person may
ask for the enactment of legislation
that would be beneficial TO himself,
and the legislature may conclude
that such legislation would be of
general benefit. and enact general
statute. Adopting the very apt illus
tration used by counsel for the de-
fendant at the argument, suppose our
General Corporation Law had not IN
cluded Electric Railways? II is more
than likely that in a very short time
after its passage such law would
have been amended so as to provide
for the organization of such a pub
lie utility, and such an amendment
would have been suggested by the
desire OF some persons to construct
and operate an electric railway.
THE distinguishing feature or
characteristic of a general law is.
that It has uniform operation as TO
all persons uniformly situated.
I'VE do not think it necessary to
review the many cases cited upon
this point The decisions in the va
rious states upon this subject are
almost innumerable, but after all the
general principles recognized are the
same in all the cases, and they are
very clearly and correctly stated in
Lewis Sutherland Statutory Con-
struction, End. Ed, Sections l95,196.
Law Is Constitutional.
After quoting authorities, the Court
continues:
Applying such principles to the
case before us. can there be any doubt
that the statute in question is a gen.
I erai law? The statute is general II
/ form II authorizes any five per
son to associate themselves together
and by compliance with its terms or
ganize a Boulevard Corporation. Th'
Boulevard which may be constructed
by such a corporation is not local
Il cannot be confined to any terri
torial subdivision of the State, bu
must extend practically Throughout
the State. The privileges offered
! by the Act are open to all alike. AL
/ persons have an equal opportunity t'
take advantage of them. More thar
six months elapsed after the approva
of the Act before the organization o
the Coleman dupont Road, Incorpor
ated," and during that time or at an,
time thereafter any five persons haI
and have the right TO organize such
corporation. There can be no sucl
doubt provided the class Of corpor
atiOns created by the statute, and tn
class of highways provided for there
by are not artificial, arbitrary and M
real classifications, and, therefore
such as are not permissible under tn
law.
"The classification made by tn
statute under consideration is Of cor
porations. and the class established il
Boulevard Corporations. The ide'
involved, and the thought in IN
, minds Of the Legislature, was Boule
wards
"wo think the classifcations mad
by the statute is not unreal, unfair
artificial, arbitrary or unreasonabl
in view of the meaning Of the wor
Boulevard
After quoting some decisions o
the point involved the Court says
I'VE are clearly of the opinion tina
the statute before us cannot be hel
to be in conflict with either Of tn
constitutional provisions now unde
consideration.
Then the court takes up the sub
ject Of eminent domain raised in tn
! ! case, and says:
1T is further contended that tn
, uses for which the statute authorize
4 land to be taken by the power q
eminent domain are not public usei
e and Il is therefore in conflict wit
! Section s of Article 1. of the Stat
: Constitution, which provides as FOL
I lows: Nor shall any mans proper
r ty be taken or applied TO public us
c without the consent of his represer
: tatives and without compensation bs
= ing made.
I'VE understand that this confer
ton Of the plaintiff is based upo
7 the ground that the uses for whic
! the statute authorizes the land 70
taken are not public uses. The pai
ticular objection is, that as to yer
, large portion Of the said land n
. public use or service is required,
|, being left entirely optional with tt
y private corporation provided for
the Act. whether the utilities mel
% toned shall ever be constructed
y not.
Il "In Tuttle VS.. Moore, GA S. W. 5S
N the Court used this language; VIII
n is a public use? A historical r.
search discloses the meaning of Il
IS term public use TO be one Of col
,o slant growth. AS society advance
l. its demands upon the individual il
(, crease, and each demand is a ne
n use to which the resources of Il
individual may be devoted
r Courts and text writer's have take
t. different views of the meaning OF Il
n, phrase-public use. but we think Il
Al 4-f-f.-- - T,ad fov hon 1s,xrord ,,t,rrp