State Aid To Railroads

From Iba Hew xorlt worw. TechiiioüH'.ies asuic, the principie iiivolvcd in Stiito lid carne up befur.e the Supremo Court of Michigan on the "(Jtb uit., and ws tlieru decidcd agüiust by tho Cliief Just'hO and two of liis three asFocifites in nu npiuion that is so juit, calm and sensible, that wewill endeavor to synopizo its main points. Taxation, s:til th oourt in effect, s tlio taliing of tlio people'a mooey uoder tho implied oondition cf using it for the people's good. Wliera it is uot iisposed for publiu but for private purposop, then t: bo t:ixaiio:i and beoomes plunder. Such being the case, the question arises wheiher railroads are public nbjeots; and the answertothis is no: " They are private propurty, whese owuers make it Üieir business to trausport persons and merehaodise in their own carriages over their own land, for suob pecuniary oorusideration as niuv bo stipulated." 'i'ruc, aa they aooommodate a publio want they eevta to p a pubiio charac'cr ; but that oharaotei is in uo wiso djfierent from that ittachiug to a hotel, a line of Btages, or n mili - all of whioh aro public, becausa they servo the public, hut in tho eye of the law mere prívate euterprises, begUB ond carriud on for more private gaiu. Private gaio is, with the railroad oompany as with the hotel proprictor, the great impelling motive, a:id the b to tiie publio a mere incidental oonsideration - so proven by the fact that, if it were possible for a lailroad or hotel to uiuke money without serrmg the publio, then tbe publio would uot be by them hoi ved. It thus appeariug that railroads are private ohjects, it is not in the power of tho State, " ander the naire of a boinity, or uoder miy other cover or subterfuge, to faroieb the capital to set private partios up in any kind of business, or to subsidiza their business after they have ent-: i'." The favoring of'one business tit tlio expense of the rest, whother that one be fara ■ ing or kankiDg, merchandising er müling, printiüíí or ruiiroadinj;, u uot mate leislution, bu', on trio contrary, an invasión of thatequalilj il' right and privilege whioh i& a masim of Stute governmeut. These are opplea of gold s't ín tures ui silver. The whole abeu of the modern doctrine ol ixiterml iiuprovemefits is nt onoe h.id baro. The people of the United States buüd tbe j Pacitie liailrotid, contributiog mij ii at of dollars of their money and miJlions of acres of their lanti to lts coustruetion, and jet. have as litlle interest iu and are churged as luucii to ridtjjupou i that road ns ii' it had been buüt by British capitalista. The principie is tho i same as it' A ure to give tncuey to B, . and then ]] lo.m il b;ck to A ou oondition of interest for ita use. Why should not A keep bia Duuej snd save lus interest ? Wliy should not the people have freo ute of the roads built and maüaced with their own means ? Ad what equivalent do John Doe and Richard Roe render tliat the people should give them uiiliions to build a road, and tbeu o'.her millions for tho use sf tho road when built f There is in this city of New York a beautiful park bought with the money of ourcitizens aud kept epen to tho vor!). Suppose tol!-gat88 buil'. and a fee ■ I :■ r-d for admittance, and there would be tiated on this city tiie sauie outriru which the Pncib'o Kailroad oonjtnite dally on tbe vi hole country. Siate tid i iho poücy of thieves; " developmenï,'1 ' opening op," " iüttrnal improremout," tbe railying cries of the sbarper, tho lobbyman, ai;d the logislative knave. Private onterprise never faüs to supply a mili, hotel, chuich or newepuper wheie onu is ueeded ; and railroading can safely be remitted to the same care. Sueh nas Iho old Democratie doctrine ; and it is a pleasing reflection tnat, mocked and d'sregarded as it bas been as effete, Iliberal, and unprogressive, lts sound sense and oldfashioDed honesty are brinsiug it onco inoro uto prominente, opproved and vindicutel by the best test any princip'e can have - tho diEOidcrc, to wit, prevalent from its absence. Much ba been lost during its abeyatice ; but if now reaifirmed in our oonrts, as in Michigan, and maintained in the press and at the ballot bos, rc;iny spoüationg may be averted. Prom tlie Chlcogo Post. It is to bu cbserved Ihat tho people of Michigan, iu conideration of the situation in whioh they are placed by this decisión, are atixious ïhat tho bonds may be made tawiul by au amendment to tbe Coustitution. This is excecdingly creditable, and honorable to thosc people. Neverthelessi it is not to be denied thnt the doctrine of the Supreme Court reeeives the approbation oí the best niinds of tho eonutry. Indeed, if ■ there !jc no limit to the power of a majority on a question oí taxHon, or il tbat limit be uot pretty elearly deliued, government beeoines iiistead of thu means of protecting privnte property, u machine for plunder a;jd spoif. In deciding against this cluim, than which tbere is none more dangerous to our mstitutions, the Supremo Oourt of Michigan placea ite!f on the side of the best thought of tho times. Nerertheless, we tru3t a way can be fuund vhercb tho raüway eutorprises of this now highly profperous and progreesive Stato, may uiovo on to cnmpletión, vithout the eatablishtnent of a priúoiplo which would come baek to plaguo the coiatuonwual.