ERROR
from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before
AMBROSE, DUFFIE, and KEYSOR, JJ.
AFFIRMED.
B. S
Baker, C. J. Greene, J. L. Kennedy, Charles Ogden, and George
W. Covell, for plaintiff in error:
The act
in question does not violate the following provisions of
section 11, article 3, of the constitution: "No bill
shall contain more than one subject, and the same shall be
clearly expressed in its title. And no law shall be amended
unless the new act contains the section or sections so
amended, and the section or sections so amended shall be
repealed." (People v. Nelson, 133 Ill. 574;
People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; Wellington
Petitioner, 16 Pick. [Mass.] 87; Erie & N. E. R. Co. v
Casey, 26 Pa. 287; Powell v. Commonwealth, 114
Pa. 265; Hawthorne v. People, 109 Ill. 302;
People v. Hazelwood, 116 Ill. 319; Wulff v
Aldrich, 124 Ill. 591; Field v. People, 2 Scam.
[Ill.] 79; Lane v. Dorman, 3 Scam. [Ill.] 238;
People v. Marshall, 1 Gil. [Ill.] 672; Newland
v. Marsh, 19 Ill. 376; Bigelow v. West Wisconsin R.
Co., 27 Wis. 478; Attorney General v. City of Eau
Claire, 37 Wis. 400; Dow v. Norris, 4 N.H. 16;
People v. Supervisors of Orange County, 17 N.Y. 235;
Bitters v. Commissioners of Fulton County, 81 Ind.
125; Clare v. People, 9 Colo., 122; White v.
City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505; Hamlin v.
Meadville, 6 Neb. 234; Kansas City & O. R. Co. v.
Frey, 30 Neb. 790; Dogge v. State, 17 Neb. 143;
State v. Babcock, 23 Neb. 128.)
The
power conferred upon the judges of the district court by the
act in question, to appoint canal trustees, is one which the
judges may exercise under the provisions of the constitution,
and the act is not unconstitutional in conferring such power
upon them. (People v. Nelson, 133 Ill. 600;
People v. Williams, 51 Ill. 63; People v.
Morgan, 90 Ill. 558; Moore v. People, 109 Ill.
499; Kilgour v. Drainage Commissioners, 111 Ill.
342; Huston v. Clark, 112 Ill. 344; Owners of
Lands v. People, 113 Ill. 296; People v.
Hoffman, 116 Ill. 587; Field v. People, 2 Scam.
[Ill.] 79; McArthur v. Nelson, 81 Ky. 67;
David v. Portland Water Committee, 14 Ore., 98;
Sheboygan v. Parker, 3 Wall. [U.S.] 93;
Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. [U.S.] 475;
Flournoy v. City of Jefferson, 17 Ind. 169;
Tennessee & C. R. Co. v. Moore, 36 Ala. 371;
Commissioner of the General Land Officer v. Smith, 5
Tex. 471; Life & Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Wilson, 8
Peters [U.S.] 291; Morton v. Comptroller General, 4
Rich. [S. Car.] 430; Grider v. Tally, 77 Ala.
422; Rains v. Simpson, 50 Tex. 495; Kendall v.
Stokes, 3 How. [U.S.] 87; South v. Maryland, 18
How. [U.S.] 396; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339; Conner
v. Long, 104 U.S. 228; People v. Supervisors,
35 Barb. [N.Y.] 408; Pennington v. Streight, 54 Ind.
376; Ex parte Batesville, 39 Ark. 82; Evans v.
Etheridge, 96 N. Car., 42; Crane v. Camp, 12
Conn. 464; State v. Doyle, 40 Wis. 174;
Washington County v. Boyd, 64 Mo. 179; Platter
v. County Commissioners, 103 Ind. 360; People v.
Bush, 40 Cal. 344; Tillotson v. Cheetham, 2 Johns.
[N.Y.] 63; Jackson v. Buchanan, 89 N. Car., 74;
Baldwin v. Hewitt, 88 Ky. 673; State v.
Sneed, 84 N. Car., 816; Nash v. People, 36 N.Y.
607; Mathews v. Houghton, 11 Me. 377; Wilson v.
Mayor of New York, 1 Den. [N.Y.] 595; Marion County
v. Moffett, 15 Mo. 406; Ray County v. Bentley,
19 Mo. 236; Cedar County v. Johnson, 50 Mo. 227;
Town Board v. Boyd, 58 Mo. 279.)
The act
does not violate section 15, article 3, of the constitution,
prohibiting special legislation. (State v. Robinson,
35 Neb. 401; State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322;
Hingle v. State, 24 Ind. 28; Hymes v.
Aydelott, 26 Ind. 421; Toledo, L. & B. R. Co. v.
Nordyke, 27 Ind. 95; Conner v. City of New York, 2
Sand. [N.Y.] 355; Wheeler v. City of
Philadelphia, 77 Pa. 338; Kilgore v. Magee, 85
Pa. 401; Commonwealth v. Patton, 88 Pa. 258;
McAunich v. Mississippi & M. R. Co., 20 Iowa 338;
Haskel v. City of Burlington, 30 Iowa 232; State
v. Tolle, 71 Mo. 645; Marmett v. City of
Cincinnati, 45 Ohio St. 63; Hunzinger v. State,
39 Neb. 653; McClay v. City of Lincoln, 32 Neb. 412.)
The act
is not void on the ground that it provides for taking private
property under the guise of taxes for other than a public
purpose. (People v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 N.Y. 419;
Williams v. Mayor of Detroit, 2 Mich. 560;
Scovill v. City of Cleveland, 1 Ohio St. 126;
Northern Ind. R. Co. v. Connelly, 10 Ohio St. 159;
Washington Avenue, 69 Pa. 352; White v. People, 94
Ill. 604; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige Ch. [N.Y.] 160;
Napa Valley R. Co. v. Napa County, 30 Cal. 487;
Stockton & V. R. Co. v. City of Stockton, 41 Cal.
147; Parham v. Justices, 9 Ga. 341; Water-Works
Co. v. Burkhart, 41 Ind. 364; Challis v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. R. Co., 16 Kan. 117; New Central Coal Co.
v. George's Creek Coal Co., 37 Md. 537;
Haverhill Bridge Proprietors v. County
Commissioners, 103 Mass. 120; Dietrich v.
Murdock, 42 Mo. 379; County Court v. Griswold,
58 Mo. 175; Concord R. Co. v. Greely, 17 N.H. 47;
Brooklyn Park Commissioners v. Armstrong, 45 N.Y.
234; In re Townsend, 39 N.Y. 171; Rogers v.
Bradshaw, 20 Johns. [N.Y.] 735; Willyard v.
Hamilton, 7 O. [Part 2] 111; Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
Co. v. Key, 3 Cranch [U.S.C.C.] 599; Darlington v.
City of New York, 31 N.Y. 164; Bell v. Mayor of New
York, 105 N.Y. 142; Spalding v. Andover, 54
N.H. 55; Skinkle v. Essex Road Board, 47 N.J.L. 93;
Hubbell v. City of Viroqua, 67 Wis. 348; City of
San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 542; Payne v.
Treadwell, 16 Cal. 233; Hart v. Burnett, 15
Cal. 568; People v. Mayor of Chicago, 51 Ill. 31;
Richland County v. Lawrence County, 12 Ill. 8;
Trustees of Schools v. Tatman, 13 Ill. 30; Palmer v.
Fitts, 51 Ala. 492.)
References
as to taking of private property for public use and
delegation of powers to private individuals or corporations:
President & Commissioners v. State, 45 Ala. 399;
Weymouth & Braintree Fire District v. County
Commissioners, 108 Mass. 144; Montpelier v. East
Montpelier, 29 Vt. 12.
Canal
trustees are not county officers within the meaning of the
provision of the constitution providing for the election of
county and township officers. (United States v. Hatch, 1
Pinney [Wis.] 182; Horton v. Town of Thompson,
71 N.Y. 521; Liebman v. City of San Francisco, 24 F.
719; Hoagland v. City of Sacramento, 52 Cal. 149;
Tone v. Mayor of New York, 70 N.Y. 165; Shepherd v.
Commonwealth, 1 S. & R. [Pa.] 1; Bryant v. Robbins,
35 N.W. 545 [Wis.]; Martin v. Tyler, 60 N.W. [N.
Dak.] 392; Walker v. City of Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St.
14; Sheboygan County v. Parker, 3 Wall. [U.S.] 93;
People v. Bennett, 54 Barb. [N.Y.] 480.)
References
to the question of corporate or county purposes for which a
county may issue bonds: Beals v. Amador, 35 Cal.
634; Harcourt v. Good, 39 Tex. 456; City of
Louisville v. Hyatt, 2 B. Mon. [Ky.] 178; Justices
of Clarke County v. Paris Turnpike Co., 11 B. Mon. [Ky.]
178; Cheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. Mon. [Ky.] 329;
City of Lexington v. McQuillan, 9 Dana [Ky.] 513;
Slack v. Marysville & L. R. Co., 13 B. Mon. [Ky.] 1;
Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. Co. v. Clinton County, 1 Ohio
St. 77; Goddin v. Grump, 8 Leigh [Va.] 120;
Sharpless v. Mayor of Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 147;
Walker v. City of Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 15;
Quincy, M. & P. R. Co. v. Morris, 84 Ill. 411;
Taylor v. Thompson, 42 Ill. 9; Chicago, D. & V.
R. Co. v. Smith, 62 Ill. 268; Nichol v. City of
Nashville, 9 Humph. [Tenn.] 252; Cotton v. Leon
County, 6 Fla. 621; Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1.
Public
corporations: Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,
4 Wheat. [U.S.] 518; Trustees of Schools v.
Tatman, 13 Ill. 30; Philips v. Bury, 2 Term Rep.
[Eng.] 346; Allen v. McKean, 1 Sumn. [U.S.]
276; People v. Morris, 13 Wend. [N.Y.] 325;
Penobscot Broom Corporation v. Lamson, 16 Me. 224;
State v. Dodge County, 8 Neb. 124; State v.
Lancaster County, 4 Neb. 540; Darst v. Griffin, 31 Neb.
668.
The
power to construct drains is no part of the usual powers
belonging to town and county governments, nor is the power to
construct canals any part of the usual powers belonging to
such governments, but is a special authority given for a
particular purpose and may be conferred by legislative power
on any person or body. (Bryant v. Robbins, 70 Wis.
258; State v. Riordan, 24 Wis. 484; State v.
Supervisors, 25 Wis. 339; State v. Dousman, 28
Wis. 541; McRae v. Hogan, 39 Wis. 529; State v.
Supervisors, 62 Wis. 376; Soens v. City of
Racine, 10 Wis. 271*; Bond v. Kenosha, 17 Wis.
292; Johnson v. City of Milwaukee, 40 Wis. 315;
Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701;
Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U.S. 606; Martin v.
Tyler, 60 N.W. [N. Dak.] 392; People v.
Salomon, 51 Ill. 37; People v. Walsh, 96 Ill.
232; Walker v. City of Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 15.)
The
canal act is not unconstitutional on the ground that it makes
party affiliation a qualification for office. (In re
Supreme Court Commissioners, 37 Neb. 655; State v.
Bemis, 45 Neb. 724.)
The
scope of the act was fairly reflected in its title.
(People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 194; White v. City
of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505; State v. Ream, 16 Neb
683; In re White, 33 Neb. 812; Perry v.
Gross, 25 Neb. 830; Poffenbarger v. Smith, 27
Neb. 788; Kansas City & O. R. Co. v. Frey, 30 Neb.
792; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lowrey, 32 Neb.
737; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Fleming, 39 Neb. 679;
Kleckner v. Turk, 45 Neb. 176; Van Horn v.
State, 46 Neb. 62; People v. State Ins. Co., 19
Mich. 392; People v. Nelson, 133 Ill. 565;
McCaslin v. State, 44 Ind. 151; State v. Town of
Union, 33 N.J.L. 350; Simpson v. Bailey, 3
Ore., 516; David v. Portland Water Co., 14
Ore., 98; People v. Commissioners, 47 N.Y. 501;
McArthur v. Nelson, 81 Ky. 67; In re Application
Mayor City of New York, 99...
