City of Indianapolis v. Navin

• Decision Date: 01 July 1898
• Docket Number: 18,246
• Parties: City of Indianapolis v. Navin
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

51 N.E. 80

151 Ind. 156

City of Indianapolis v. Navin

No. 18,246

Supreme Court of Indiana

July 1, 1898

Original Opinion of June 11, 1897, Reported at: 151 Ind. 139.

OPINION

Per Curiam.

In this case the principal contention was that the act of March 6 1897, amending section 9 of the act to provide for the incorporation of street railroad companies, was inoperative and void because in contravention of section 13 of article 11 of the constitution of this State. In arriving at the conclusion reached in the original opinion, we had the benefit of the opinion of the circuit justice delivered in the case of the Central Trust Co. v Citizens' Street R. R. Co., reported in 80 F. 218, and also of the very able argument addressed to the justice in that case by the eminent counsel for the complainant.

After carefully considering, not only the arguments presented in this case, but also the arguments and opinion referred to, and all the light that we could obtain upon the question, we were constrained to hold that the contention that the legislation in question was in violation of the constitution of this State was without just foundation, and that the act was in harmony therewith. The question thus presented to us was purely one arising upon the construction of the constitution of this State. Such a question, when presented to this court, is one that it must decide upon its own judgment as to the requirements of the state constitution. While in search of assistance and information to enable us to decide such a question correctly, it is eminently proper and necessary that we should examine, weigh, and consider, not only the arguments of counsel, but also the adjudications of courts and the opinions of judges, in other jurisdictions, upon similar or analogous provisions of this or other constitutions, and give to them such weight as in our opinion they are justly entitled to; but, after that has been done, the responsibility rests upon us, and us alone, and that responsibility cannot be shirked, evaded, or avoided.

What the constitution of the United States and the laws of Congress, or treaties made thereunder, require, is to be finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and its decisions, when made upon such questions, are binding upon the courts in every state, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Cooley Const. Lim. (6th ed.) pp. 18-23; Black on Interpretation of Laws, pp. 378-380, 427-429; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 37-40, and cases cited.

The interpretation and construction of the statutes of this State, and whether the same have been enacted in accordance with the requirements of the constitution of this State, and are or are not in violation of any provision of the constitution of this State, however, are questions to be finally determined by this court, and by this court alone. The rule is that the construction put upon the constitution and laws of a state by the court of last resort of such state, and the decision of such court that a law has or has not been passed in conformity with the requirements of the constitution of such state, or that the same is or is not in violation of the constitution of such state, are binding upon the federal courts and will be adopted by them. Black on Interpretation of Laws, pp. 378-381, 427-429; 23 Am. &amp Eng. Ency of Law, pp. 37-40, and cases cited; Cooley on Const. Lim., pp. 18-23; Black's Const. Law., p. 140; 35 Central Law Journal, 322; Goodnow v. Wells, 67 Iowa 654, 25 N.W. 864; May v. Tenney, 148 U.S. 60, 64, 65, 37 L.Ed. 368, 13 S.Ct. 491; Balkam v. Woodstock Iron Co., 154 U.S. 177, 187-189, 38 L.Ed. 953, 14 S.Ct. 1010; Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421, 38 L.Ed. 1031, 14 S.Ct. 1114; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462, 467, 35 L.Ed. 225, 11 S.Ct. 577; Morley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. W. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 166-169, 36 L.Ed. 925, 13 S.Ct. 54; Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U.S. 647, 652-659, 37 L.Ed. 316, 13 S.Ct. 466; Oakes v. Mase, 165 U.S. 363, 41 L.Ed. 746, 17 S.Ct. 345; Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U.S. 506, 518-520, 41 L.Ed. 1095, 17 S.Ct. 665; Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685, 688, 41 L.Ed. 1165, 17 S.Ct. 718; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U.S. 461, 462, 42 L.Ed. 236, 17 S.Ct. 829; Water Power Co. v. Water Commissioners, 168 U.S. 349, 357, 42 L.Ed. 497, 18 S.Ct. 157; Backus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 566, 42 L.Ed. 853, 18 S.Ct. 445; Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co., 163 U.S. 63, 41 L.Ed. 72; Illinois Central R. Co. v. State of Illinois, 163 U.S. 142, 41 L.Ed. 107, 16 S.Ct. 1096; Nobles v. State of Georgia (U.S.), 168 U.S. 398, 18 S.Ct. 87, 42 L.Ed. 515; McCain v. City of Des Moines, 84 F. 726; Leighton v. Young, 52 F. 439; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Poe, 64 F. 9; ...