Year: 1871

terest TO all classes of people than
those touching the taxation of rail-
roads; and the more so, because cor.
porations are drawing so heavily up
on the resources Of the country, for
the construction of their roads,
The question which recently came
before the Supreme Court of the
State, We deem of sufficient impor-
tance to warrant our presenting the
decision nearly complete. The ques.
ton is this; the Dunleith aud Du-
buque Bridge Company constructed
railroad bridge across tho Missis.
sippi, portion OF which bridge was
within the corporate limits of Du-
buquc. The city of Dubuque levied
a tax upon the property. The bridge
company brought an action in the
District Court of Dubuque county,
to enjoin the collection Of the tax,
claiming that the act of the Twelfth
General Assembly, providing for a
tax of one per cent. upon the gross
earnings of railroads, exempted from
all other taxes by the following
clause: 'The tax herein provided for
shall be in lieu of all taxes tor any
and all purposes on the road bed,
track, rolling stock. and necessary
buildings for operating the road"
The District Court denied the in
junction, and the case was appealed.
Upon the two questions involved,
Judge Beck gave the following de-
cision, Judge Cole dissenting:


l. Following the order pursued by
plaintiffs counsel, in the discussion
of the case, we will first notice his
position that the power of the city to
levy taxes upon the property in
question is taken away by the clause
Of the statute above quoted. The
other question in the case, which in.
wolves the objection raised by plaln-
tiff that there has been no legislation
authorizing the city to levy and col
lect taxes upon the property of rail
roads. which property should be first
considered, will be hereafter discuss
ed.


The object of the statute above re-
ferred to is to provide for the taxa
ton OF railroads for State and coun.
ty purposes. This is apparent from
consideration of the statute itself.
The revenue raised by the taxes au-
thorized, is to be paid into the treas
ury Of the State, and one halt of i:
then paid to the counties. Its object
is not to exempt the property Of
railroads from the taxation, but to
provide for the manner Of its taxa
ton.


No provision is made upon the
subject OF municipal taxation of this
kind Of property, and there is no ex-
press word prohibiting 1t. To regu-
late or prohibit the taxation of the
property Of railroads by cities is not
the object Of the statute. The rules
OF construction will not permit us to
apply the law to an object not with
in it's scope. We therefore conclude
that it cannot be extended to oper-
ate as prohibition of the taxation
of the property Of railroads by the
cities Of the State.


The language Of the limltation in
/ the statute, that the taxes therein au-
| thorized ''shall be in lieu Of all taxes
for any and all purposes" while
broad AMI general, mus. be confined
to the object Of the statute which, as
we have seen, is the regulation of tax
alton for State and county purposes.
The State and counties levy taxes
tor many purposes. Separate levies
of different rates are made, to be
paid into distinct funds which are ex


pended for different objects. The


tax authorized in this case is intend


ed to be in lieu of the taxes author


lied for these purposes. This is th'


evident meaning Of the language o


the law in question.


! III. The other question to be con