346 Meyer — Early Railroad Legislation in Wisconsin. 
In the case of Clark vs. Janesville (1859), which involved the 
validity of bonds issued by the city of Janesville in aid of a 
railroad, because the bonds had been issued before the charter 
had been published, the supreme court held that the charter of 
the city of Janesville was a general law within the meaning of 
the constitution, and that it was hence not in force until after 
its publication. Consequently, the bonds in question were held 
invalid. It should be stated that the Janesville charter (§7, 
Ch. 4) contained a provision which authorized the city to sub¬ 
scribe to stock under certain conditions, and it was this section 
of the charter which was made prominent in the case. But it 
is clear that if this provision makes the city charter a public 
act, that acts of the legislature which contain only such provi¬ 
sions must a fortiori be general laws within the meaning of the 
constitution. In reaching its conclusion the court discusses at 
length the definitions involved. 
In our state constitution, says the court, general is used as 
the opposite to the word special. Similarly, the word public 
stands in opposition to the word private , although a provision 
in a legislative act declaring it to be a public act does not 
make it a public act if it is in its nature and substance a private 
act. Many V/isconsin railroad charters contain such a provi¬ 
sion, yet in spite of it they unquestionably remain private acts. 
"Whether an act of parliament is to be deemed a public act, 
binding on all the queen's subjects, or merely a private act, de¬ 
pends upon the nature and substance of the case, and not upon 
the technical consideration whether the act does or does not 
contain a clause that it shall be deemed a public act”. 1 
In Clark vs. Janesville the court holds that general and public 
are used synonomously, and that a public act is one that re¬ 
gards the whole community. On this ground the Janesville 
charter is a general law. An act may be special in so far as it 
relates to one of a class and at the same time general in so far 
as it is of such extensive and general interest as to be a public 
(general) law. When the constitution provides, VII, 21, that "no 
1 Dawson vs. Paver , 5 Hare, 415; quoted in Anthony’s Brief in the 
case of Wadsivorth vs. C. & N. IF. i?. I?., in U. S. circuit court for the 
northern district of Illinois. Mot contained in Clark vs. Janesville. 
