Year: 1870

an important bill, introduced by Senator
Roberts. Of Nevada, and stated some OF the
Objectionable features Of the bill, announc


ing al the time that in the main the bill was
good one. Since then we have received
mole from Senator Roberts calling our
attention more particularly TO what we
deemed the unconstitutional features Of the
bill. The bill proposes to grant the right
Of way for ingress and egress for all neces-
sary purposes over and across the lands and
mining claims Of others" So far as The
granting the right of way over, through or
under the public lands possessory claims
and mining claims in the possession OF 9th
ers, the bill is proper, legitimate. equitable
and well guarded, but when it includes
lands held in fee under title from the United
States or State Government, then, in our
view it would be, under the Constitution,
absolutely null, and would only serve to
inaugursle expensive litigation, neighbor-
hood troubles and i'll blood. The 8,b sec


ton Of article one of the State Constitution
settles this question, through there are other
constitutional probblallons against taking
private property for ptjva'e uses care
less reading might induce ono 10 btlle . that
private property might be taken for any
purpose by "dus process Of law" The
clause reads: mo person shall be subject


to he twice Pot in jeopardy for the same
offence; nor shall he he compelled, in any
criminal case, to be witness against him
self nor he deprived Of life, liberty or prop.
erty without due process Of law" The con


text shows that tins language clearly refers
to criminal prosecutions CT proceedings, and
is to guard against a forfeiture Of property.
except through judicial conviction and
sentence. But the closing portion Of the
section NOR shall prirate property be ia
ken for public usc without just compensa


tom removes all doubts as to what the
trainers of the Constitution intended. Why
these two provisions if you can take private
properly for private uses by civil process9
We cannot seriously believe that any mem
Der Of the Legislature can possibly suppose
| bat laws can be made and enforced 10 take
one private citizen property for the benefit
Of another private citizen. Obtaining a
roadway over private lands TO a public high
10 Hal +, in hot
The public road figures and the wants may
require that the public should have ingress
and egres,. There is no similarity between
the above case aud one where a private par
ty desires TO use another's orchard, garden
OF door yard for dump pile. A mine ow-
ner AS well rs a farm owner can obtain in
gress and egress to pubic highway now,
but his right Of way must be road
Leading to soms public highway and ter
inmate there, and not on private prop
erty. When a person obtains tho title
| 10 fee from the United States to land


no law can take it from him and ap-
propria,e it to private purposes, but if the
public wants it for public use, then it can
he taken for such use on payment, in advance,
of nst compensation. 1t is well that this


is the case, for If The legislature could pass


laws by vii h private property cou d be tai .
en- or used for private purposes, then, in
deed would there be no security in property


considering the kind Of Legislatures and
the material statesmen are made out Of in
these latter days. This bill. so far as phi
vate lands are concerned might give law
yers and officers po6lable employment,
but it would entail great expense upon
both mine and land owners, and end in be-
ing declared unconstitutional and void.


The RullNG PASSION 1t may be true
that lie well stuck to is as good as the
truth, but that must most certainly depend
upon the kind of company man keeps or
the ignorance Of hs readers. Every crea.