Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott
Citation | 19 Wall. 666,86 U.S. 666,22 L.Ed. 227 |
Parties | TOWNSHIP OF PINE GROVE v. TALCOTT |
Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Western District of Michigan, in which court Talcott brought assumpsit against the township of Pine Grove, one of the municipalities of the State of Michigan, to recover the amount of certain bonds issued by that township to aid in the construction of a railroad running through the said township, from Kalamazoo to South Haven, both places being in Michigan.
The constitution of Michigan (adopted A.D. 1850) thus ordains:
&c.
These provisions of the constitution being in force, the legislature of Michigan, on the 22d of March, 1869, passed an act entitled 'An act to enable any township, city, or village to pledge its aid, by loan or donation, to any railroad company now chartered or organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, in the construction of its road.'
The act enacted:
'That it shall be lawful for any township or city to pledge its aid to any railroad company now chartered, organized, or that may hereafter be organized, under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, in the construction of its road, by loan or donation, with or without conditions, for such sum or sums, not exceeding ten per centum of the assessed valuation then last made of the real and personal property in such township or city, as a majority of the electors of such township or city voting shall, at a meeting or meetings called for that purpose, determine.'
The manner in which the vote should be taken and the bonds executed was provided for in subsequent sections.
Under this act the bonds on which the suit was brought were issued. The bonds, and the coupons attached to them, were made 'payable to bearer.' It was not denied that the directions given in the act were carried out.
The declaration set forth in special counts the cause of action. The township demurred on the sole ground that the law in question was in conflict with the constitution of the State, and judgment being given against the township, it brought the case here.
The act under which the bonds were issued had been the subject of very full consideration by the Supreme Court of Michigan, in Bay City v. The State Treasurer,1 and an act of a similar character had been previously considered by the same court in The People v. Salem.2 Both acts were declared to be in conflict with the constitution, and void.
In the former case (Graves, J., dissenting, and delivering an opinion in dissent), the unconstitutionality of the law was placed upon several distinct grounds, some of which were more fully insisted on than others.
In the latter case it was held (Cooley, J., delivering on this occasion, as he had done on the former, the opinion of the court), that the statute was in conflict with Article VI, section thirty-two, already quoted, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law, and also with the provisions of Article XIV, sections eight and nine, also already quoted, which prohibit the State from being a party to or interested in any works of internal improvement.
The court observes that the State had, prior to 1850, when the constitution was established, been engaged in works of the description named and had owned some of the principal railroads in the State. It refers to the history of the times in which the constitution was adopted, and points out how previously to that time the people had been fraudulently led into the creation of debts for railroads of which they denied the moral obligation, and in consequence of which their public credit had been impaired; and how—interpreting these provisions as effectually guarding them against the like evils and dangers for the future—the people were induced more than by any other motive to adopt the constitution. The court says:
'All these provisions were incorporated by the people in the constitution as precautions against injudicious action by themselves, if in another time of inflation and excitement they should be tempted to incur the like burdensome taxation in order to accomplish public improvement in cases where they were not content to wait the result of private enterprise. The people meant to erect such effectual barriers that if the temptation should return, the means of inflicting the like injury upon the credit, reputation, and prosperity of the State should not be within the reach of the authorities. They believed these clauses of the constitution accomplished this purpose perfectly; and none of its provisions had more influence in recommending that instrument to the hearty good-will of the people.
'In process of time, however, a majority in the legislature were found willing, against the solemn warning of the executive, to resort again to the power of taxation in aid of internal improvement. It was discovered that though 'the State' was expressly inhibited from giving such aid in any form, except in the disposition of grants made to it, the subdivisions of which the State was composed were not under the like ban. Decisions in other States were found which were supposed to sanction the doctrine that under such circumstances, the State might do indirectly through its subdivisions what directly it was forbidden to do. This a way was opened by which the whole purpose of the constitutional provisions quoted might be defeated. The State could not aid a private corporation with its credit, but it might require each of its townships, cities, and villages to do so. The State could not load down its people with taxes for the construction of a public improvement, but it might compel the municipal authorities, which were its mere creatures, and which held their whole authority and their whole life at its will, to enforce such taxes, one by one, until the whole people were bent to the burden.
Notwithstanding these decisions, the court below gave judgment against the township, and it, accordingly, brought the case here.
Mr. J. A. Garfield, for the plaintiff in error:
The only point in issue below was the meaning of the constitution of the State, and on such a question it was the duty of the court below to have taken as true the meaning put upon it by its highest judicial tribunal. If a contrary course of proceeding is permissible there is an end to the independence of the judiciary of the States, and the decisions of tribunals which are confessedly constitutional expositors of the local law, are reviewed and reversed by a tribunal possessing no authority to exercise such functions upon any theory of State and Federal jurisdiction hitherto recognized in our judicial history.
A long series of decisions in this court—of which Nesmith v. Sheldon3 is but one illustration of which there...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Terry, In re, Cr. 13949
-
WPW Acquisition Co. v. City of Troy
...and tyrannical, it was also unconstitutional. [Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269, 276 (1868).] Further, in Pine Grove Twp. v. Talcott, 86 U.S. (19 Wall) 666, 675, 22 L.Ed. 227 (1873), the United States Supreme Court considered Const. 1850, art. 14, § 11, and Justice Swayne, writing for the Cou......
-
Hill v. Atl. & N. C. R. Co
...and consistently has the rule been announced. Gelpeke v. City of Dubuque. 1 Wall. (U. S.) 175, 17 L. Ed. 520; Township of Pine Grove t. Talcott, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 68, 22 L. Ed. 227; Ins. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. (U. S.) 416, 14 L. Ed. 997; Taylor v. Ypsilante, 105 U. S. 74, 26 L. Ed. 1008; Boy......
-
State v. Greer
... ... proceedings in due course of law ... In ... Pine Grove Township v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 22 L.Ed ... 227, the action ... ...
-
The Municipal Bond Cases Revisited.
...(1 Wall.) 175 (1864) (Iowa; railroad); Olcott v. Supervisors, 83 U.S. 678 (1873) (Wisconsin; railroad); Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott, 86 U.S. 666 (1874) (Michigan; railroad); Cty. of Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U.S. 407 (1879) (Illinois; (55) Dillon, supra note 38. (56) Id. (57) See ......
-
LITIGATING IMPERFECT SOLUTIONS: STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN FEDERAL COURT.
...that Gelpcke was an extension of general law). (50.) See Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U.S. 444, 452 (1924). (51.) Pine Grove v. Talcott, 86 U.S. 666, 677 (52.) Id. (53.) Id. at 678; see also Olcott v. Supervisors, 83 U.S. 678, 690 (1872) (holding lhal the issue of whether certain state an......
-
The Misunderstood Thomas Cooley: Regulation and Natural Rights From the Founding to the Icc
...Alan Jones remarks that the decision was “the great news of the summer.” JONES, supra note 1, at 181 n.41. 121. Pine Grove Tp. v. Talcott, 86 U.S. 666, 676 (1874). 122. Id. at 677. 123. See, e.g., David M. Gold, Redfield, Railroads, and the Roots of “Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism,” 27 AM......