202 U.S.

Argument for Appellant.

States v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 440, 444, the Sugar Bounty case, is no precedent here, even if these taxes were designed to pay a debt, and not provide uno flatu a bounty for a private corporation and a stately edifice for the adornment of the capital of the nation, as such. The cases above cited sustain this contention.

The right of taxation can only be used in aid of a public object, an object which is within the purpose for which governments are established, and cannot, therefore, be exercised in aid of enterprises strictly private, even though, in a remote or collateral way, the local public may be benefited thereby. Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, 664; Cole v. LaGrange, 112 U. S. 1, 6; Miles Planting Co. v. Carlisle, 5 D. C. App. 138; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 28; Whiting v. Sheboygan, Fond du Lac R. R. Co., 25 Wisconsin, 167; Sweet v. Hulbert, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 312; Lowell v. Boston, 111 Massachusetts, 454; Central Branch U. P. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 23 Kansas, 533.

It is admitted by the Court of Appeals that all three of the acts in question originated in the Senate; and the same fact also appears affirmatively by reference to the Congressional Record.

A literal compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Constitution, whether affirmative or negative, is a condition precedent to the validity of any law laying taxes on the property of the people, and attempts to evade those provisions constitute violations of them. Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U. S. 506, 521, 522; Baltimore v. Gill, 31 Maryland, 375, 387, 388; Rodman v. Munson, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 63; People v. Nicoll, 3 Selden, 9, 139.

All remedial laws, such as the constitutional provisions respecting taxation and due process of law, must be so construed as to repel the mischief and advance the remedy, by searching out and nullifying evasions as well as violations of them. Atty. General v. Meyricke, 2 Vesey, Sr. 44; Atty. General v. Day, 1 Vesey, Sr. 218; Atty. General v. Davies, 9 Vesey, Jr. 535, 541; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 175, 176; Ex parte Gar

Argument for Appellees.

202 U. S.

land, 4 Wall. 333; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 237; Baltimore v. Gill, 31 Maryland, 375; Cooke County v. Industrial School for Girls, 125 Illinois, 540, 564, 565; Farmer v. St. Paul, 67 N. W. Rep. 990; Washingtonian Home v. Chicago, 157 Illinois, 414, 428; Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 24, 40 et seq.; Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655; Ward v. Joplin, 186 U. S. 142, 152; Brownsville v. League, 129 U. S. 493; Bank of San Francisco v. Dodge, Assessor, 197 U. S. 70.

No conclusive presumption can arise to defeat the operation of the mandatory and remedial provisions of the Constitution respecting taxation and due process of law, which are selfexecuting. Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U. S. 506, 521, 522; Post v. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 657, 667; Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260.

The Solicitor General for the Treasurer of the United States; Mr. Wayne Mac Veagh, Mr. Frederic D. McKenney and Mr. John S. Flannery for Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co.; Mr. George E. Hamilton and Mr. Michael J. Colbert for Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. and Washington Terminal Co.; Mr. Edward H. Thomas for the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, appellees, submitted:

The act of February 28, 1903, and the two acts approved February 12, 1901, do not appropriate public moneys or levy taxes upon the taxpayers of the District of Columbia for private purposes. The project was in response to a general desire of the public, to abolish dangerous grade crossings and to remove the railroad tracks from the mall. The acts were based on an ample consideration, irrespective of the general power of Congress in the premises.

We submit that Congress, in the acts themselves, having declared that the appropriations were made upon a valuable consideration and for a public purpose, the matter is not open to review in the courts. Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law, 57, 58; Cooley on Taxation, 2d ed., 111.

202 U. S.

Argument for Appellees.

This court has repeatedly held that, although railroad corporations are private corporations as distinguished from those created for municipal and governmental purposes, their uses are public. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 571.

The power of States, counties and municipalities to aid in the construction of railroads, upon the ground that railroads are quasi public institutions created and existing for the benefit of the public at large, is well established. Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 698; Curtis v. County of Butler, 24 How. 447, 449; Rogers v. Burlington, 3 Wall. 665; St. Joseph v. Rogers, 16 Wall. 663; Gillman v. Sheboygan, 2 Black, 515; Larned v. Burlington, 4 Wall. 276; Railroad Co. v. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 673; Township of Pine Grove v. Talbott, 19 Wall. 676; United States v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 330; Loan Assn. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 661; Otoe Co. v. Baldwin, 111 U. S. 15.

The United States possesses complete jurisdiction, both of a political and municipal nature, over the District of Columbia. When Congress, acting as the municipal legislature of said District, in the exercise of the police power, enacts legislation for the benefit of the health and safety of the community and makes an appropriation and levies an assessment to carry said legislation into effect, the propriety of its action is not open to review by the courts. Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371, 381; Wilson v. Lambert, 168 U. S. 611; N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556. See also Wabash R. R. Co. v. Defiance, 167 U. S. 88, 98; Chicago &c. R. R. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57, 74.

But even if the appropriations made by the acts of 1901 and 1903 could be regarded as donations they would still be legal and the acts providing therefor constitutional and valid.

From the beginning of this Government, Congress has made donations for the benefit of public service corporations, in the nature of land grants, subsidies and bounties, and such donations have been invariably sustained. Allen v. Smith, 173 U. S. 402; United States v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 440.

VOL. CCII-28

Said acts of 1901 and 1903 are not revenue or tax measures in the sense contemplated by the Constitution.

The provisions of section 7, article I of the Constitution, which requires that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives," cannot apply to any of the acts involved in this case, even if we should admit for the purposes of the argument that said acts did originate in the Senate instead of in the House of Representatives.

By "bills" is meant "money bills." Story's Constitution, § 874. In practice it is applied to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word. 2 Elliott's Debates, 283, 284; Story's Constitution, § 880.

Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, is decisive of the question.

The act of February 28, 1903, from the recitals in its enacting clause and the fact that it has received the approval of the President and has been regularly enrolled among the statutes of the United States, must be presumed to have been passed by Congress in strict accord with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and resort cannot be had to the journals of the two houses to overthrow this presumption. Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 680; Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U. S. 547, 562; Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, supra.

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 1.

1.

1 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 and Ohio Rail

road 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 and Potomac Railroad Company, in the city of Washington, D. C., and requiring said company to depress and elevate its tracks, and to enable it to relocate

(31 Stat. 767, 774; 32 Stat. 909), 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 constitulional 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 and Potomac Railroad Company the sum of $750,000, and a like sum to the Baltimore and 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 I, section 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.

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 February 28, 1903.