Rensselaer Union, Volume 2, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 April 1870 — Will it be Legal to Vote a Railroad Tax on the 16th? [ARTICLE]

Will it be Legal to Vote a Railroad Tax on the 16th?

Eos. UaipN: In view of the fact that'onr people last fall voted an appropriation to the Indianapolis, Delphi A Chicago Railroad, the question suggests itself whether they can on the 1 6th of the present month, vote anotheg appropriation to the Fort Wayne A Pacific Railroad. It is believed by some that such a vote will be a nullity. Others again bold that it will be legal, and that if it is decided in favor of the appropriation, our County Commissioners can at their next regnlar term in June, levy the tax, notwithstanding the former election and vote in favor of the appropriation to the 1., D. AC.R. R. I concur with those who advocate the latter view, and I shall attempt to show that our citizens can legally vote an appropriation to the Ft. W. AP. R. R.; that our Commissioners can legally levy a tax for that purpose; and that it will be lawful for them not to levy a tax for the 1., D. AC. R. R.

Those who insist that no appropriation can be made, to the Ft W. A P. R. R. rely upon sections 12 and 13 of the act of May 12th 1869, in relation to levying taxes for railroads. Section 12 provides that “if a majority of the votes cast shall be in favor of such railroad appropriation, the Board of County Commissioners, at their ensuing regular June session shall grant the prayer of said petition and shall levy a special tax of at least one-half "the amount specified in said petition,” Ac. Section 13 provides that “no county or township shall be authorized by the provisions of this act, to appropriate to railroad purposes, or to raise by taxation for such purposes to exceed two per centum upon the taxables of such county (as said taxables shall appear on the tax duplicate of the county,) in any one period of two years ” Now it is contended by those opposed to the proposed appropriation to the Ft. W. A P. R. R., Ist, That as an election was held last fall upon the question of making an appropriation to the 1., D. A C. R. R. and that as a majority of the votes cast at that election decided in favor of the appropriation, the Board of Commissioners under section 12 above referred to, must at their next June term levy a special tax to aid in the construction of said railroad; 2d, That as the amount decided at said election to be appropriated to the L, D. A C. R. R. was about two per centum on the taxables of the county, under section 13, above mentioned, uo farther appropriation can be made until two years shall have expired, .after the tax is levied for the first appropriation. ... It is clear I think from the sections quoted that if a levy of taxes be actually made for the 1., D. AC. R. R., no levy can be made within two years thereafter for any other railroad. But the question is, can that levy be avoided, and if so how? The petition referred to in section 12 is the original petition, signed by at least one hundred freeholders of the county, praying for the railroad appropriation. It will be seen by this section, that before levying the tax, the Commissioners must “grant the prayer of said petition.” Bat suppose “said petition” should be withdrawn or dismissed by voluntary action of the petitioners, before it was finally acted upon, how could the Commissioners grant the prayer of the same? They certainly could not grant the prayer of the petition, nor levy the tax when the petition was no longer before them, any more than they could grant a man a license to sell intoxicating liquors in a less quantity

than a quart at a time, after he had dismissed his application. But can the petitioners after the vote is taken and decided in favor of the appropriation, and before the petition is finai. 1 V acted upon by the Commissioners', withdraw or dismiss their petition? Why not? Where can a precedent 5® found denying them such right? It true the act referred to says nothing about such right, nor does the act providing for the change and location of public highways expressly provide that the petitioners for such change or location may dismiss or withdraw their petition before the final action of the Commissioners. Yet such withdrawal or dismissal is sanctioned by the universal practice in all Commissioners’ courts. Nor does

the act for licensing the sale es im tor testing liquors in a less quantity than a quart at a time, provide that the petitioner, before his application is acted upon, may withdraw or dismiss his petilkm, but how absurd jt would be to say that he

right of petitioners for a railroad t*x to withdraw or dismiss their petition before it is granted by the Board, and consequently before the tax is levied, is sanctioned by goid common sense and the practice in all analogous cases. And I also think it is in harmony with the general statute prescribing the duties and powers of County Commissiouers. .Section 9of that act, on page 249 of the 2d vol. of the Revised Statutes, Gavin A Hord’s edition, provides that Commissioners shall comply as far as practicable with the rules of conducting business in the Circuit Court In the Circuit Court, a party may dismiss his action at any time before the jury retire, or when the trial is by the Court, at any time before the finding of the Court is announced. Section 363, 2d vol. G. AH. Is it not practicable for the Commissioners to comply with this rule of the Circuit Court and allow petitioners for railroad appropriations to dismiss their application before there is a finding of the Board upon the petition, or tn other words, to allow them to dismiss before the Board grant the prayer of the petition as to making the levy? That the petitioners can dismiss their petition before the levy is made seems to be a proposition too plain to need further elucidation.

To avoid the levy, then, for the 1., D. AC. R. R., all that will be necessary is for the petitioners who asked the appropriation for that railroad to dismiss their petition before the Board act upon it at their next June term. When that petition is dismissed, there will be nothing to prevent the Board from granting the petition in favor of the Ft. W- A P. R. R.

I am informed a large majority of those who signed the petition in favor of the 1., D. A C. R. R. have already signed a paper indicating their desire to dismiss that petition before it is finally acted upon. This will be sufficient to authorize its dismissal. What we want is a railroad. We would just as soon have the 1., D. A C. R. R. as the Ft. W. A P., but the prospect of the former road is not good, while that of the latter is most encouraging, provided the necessary local aid can be sesured. There is no legal obstacle in the way of our giving it aid by a county appropriation. Let us do so and if possible secure the

road.

E. P. HAMMOND.