Josiah Millard v. Ellis Roberts
| Decision Date | 21 May 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 234,234 |
| Parties | JOSIAH MILLARD, Appt. , v. ELLIS H. ROBERTS, Treasurer of the United States; Henry B. F. Macfarland, Henry L. West, and John Biddle, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Josiah Millard in propria persona for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 429-432 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Hoyt, Edward H. Thomas, Wayne MacVeagh, Frederic D. McKenney, John Spalding Flannery, George E. Hamilton, and Michael J. Colbert for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 432-434 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a bill in equity to enjoin Ellis H. Roberts, as Treasurer of the United States, from paying to any person any moneys of the District of Columbia, under certain acts of Congress
An act entitled 'An Act to Provide for Eliminating Certain Grade Crossings of Railroads in the District of Columbia, to Require and Authorize the Construction of New Terminals and Tracks for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company in the City of Washington, and for Other Purposes,' approved February 12, 1901; an act entitled 'An Act to Provide for Eliminating Certain Grade Crossings on the Line of the Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, and Requiring Said Company to Depress and Elevate its Tracks, and to Enable it to Relocate Parts of Its Railroad Therein, and for Other Purposes,' approved February 12, 1901; an act entitled 'An Act to Provide for a Union Railroad Station in the District of Columbia and for Other Purposes,' approved Rebruary 28, 1903 , and to enjoin the other defendants from carrying into effect said acts of Congress, and that said acts 'be declared null and void for want of constitutional authority.' Defendants interposed demurrers to the bill, which were sustained by the supreme court, and a decree entered dismissing the bill. The court of appeals affirmed the decree.
The principal allegations of the bill are that the railroad defendants are private corporations and all interested in the railway and terminal facilities of the District of Columbia; that the District of Columbia owns no stock in any of the companies nor is otherwise interested in any of them save as useful private enterprises, and yet it is required by said acts, 'without any lawful consideration therefor,' to pay the Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company the sum of $750,000, and a like sum to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, 'to be levied and assessed upon the taxable property and privileges in the said District other than the property of the United States and the District of Columbia,' and for the exclusive use of said corporations respectively, 'which is a private use, and not a governmental use;' that the public moneys of the District of Columbia are raised chiefly by taxation on the lands therein, and that the complainant is obliged to pay and does pay direct taxes on land owned by him therein. And the bill also alleges that the acts of Congress are 'acts which provide for raising revenue, and are repugnant to article 1, § 7, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, and are, therefore, null and void ab initio, and to their entire extent, because they, and each and every one of them, originated in the Senate, and not in the House of Representatives.' Certain volumes of the Congressional Record are referred to and made part of the bill.
In other allegations of the bill are expressed the limitations upon the power of the United States and the District of Columbia as to taxation; that the acts of Congress complained of are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States; that public funds are appropriated for private use, and that exorbitant taxes will be required to meet the legitimate expenses of the District of Columbia, and appellant will thereby be oppressed and deprived of his property without due process of law.
The first contention of appellant is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ravitz v. Steurele
......Nebecker, 167 U.S. 196, 17 S.Ct. 766, 42 L.Ed. 134; Millard...Nebecker, 167 U.S. 196, 17 S.Ct. 766, 42 L.Ed. 134; Millard v. Roberts......
-
Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives
...by private plaintiffs. See, e.g., Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 55 L.Ed. 389 (1911); Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429, 26 S.Ct. 674, 50 L.Ed. 1090 (1906).4 This appeal comprises two cases filed in the district court. Representative W. Henson Moore and 17 other member......
-
Spain v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co.
...Lumber Co., 199 U.S. 487, 495, 26 Sup.Ct. 133, 50 L.Ed. 281; Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429, 437, 26 Sup.Ct. 674, 50 L.Ed. 1090. In Millard v. Roberts the court 'The titles of the acts are the best brief summary of their purposes.' Another rule of law applicable to the case at bar is that......
-
Flast v. Cohen
...directly on the standing question. Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24, 31, 27 S.Ct. 233, 234, 51 L.Ed. 351 (1907); Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429, 438, 26 S.Ct. 674, 676 (1906); Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291, 295, 20 S.Ct. 121, 122, 44 L.Ed. 168 6. The prevailing view of the commentators is......