Taxation—Eminent Domain. 
379 
onerous burdens upon them. And the people, in possession of 
such power, could at any time, they said, protect themselves 
against the encroachments of the consolidated railroads, which 
so many regarded with suspicion and fear. Aside from the pur¬ 
pose for which the railroad men at that time employed this ar¬ 
gument, we must admit that there was much truth in their as¬ 
sertion. The taxing power, prudently and justly employed , in 
an excellent presentation of the Chicago-Galena consolidation I wish 
again to refer to Anthony’s Argument before the U. S. Circuit Court. 
7. 7 Wis., 59 (Mil. & Pr. du Ch. R. R. vs. Watertown Plankroad Co.). 
A corporation is not only incapable of making contracts which are for¬ 
bidden by its charter, but in general it can make none which are not nec¬ 
essary either directly or indirectly, to effect the object of its creation. 
(Also in Rock River Bank vs. Sherwood , 10 Wis., 231.) 
8. Adler vs. Milwaukee Pat. Brick Co., 13 Wis., 57. The capital 
stock of a corporation, both that which has actually been paid in, and 
that which remains unpaid, is regarded in law, as a trust fund, in which 
creditors and stockholders are alike interested. And it cannot be diverted 
to any other purpose, than the purpose for which it was subscribed and 
paid. 
9. 11 Wis., 306 and 14 Wis., 625. A railroad corporation can not engage 
in any distinct or separate branch of business not authorized by its char¬ 
ter, for the purpose of raising funds to accomplish the objects for which 
it was created. (From Judge Cole’s decision in the latter case.) In Ch. 
II we saw that several charters expressly prohibited railroads from engag¬ 
ing in other kinds of business. The same is supported by citations in Hirschl 
(p. 26), where he says that “ the power to either make or accept a lease of 
a railroad property is not among the ordinary powers in a charter. Nor 
does it include power to engage directly, or by means of guaranty, indi¬ 
rectly, in collateral disconnected undertaking, though for the purpose of 
thereby obtaining subscription to stock.” However, the right of a rail¬ 
road company to make a guarantee to a steamship company in order to in¬ 
duce if to make connections was established for Wisconsin, in the case of 
the Green Bay and Minnesota R. R. Co. vs. Union Steamboat Co., 
107 U. S., 98, and 2 U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep., 221. The Wisconsin legislature, 
by special acts, granted railroads certain privileges in connecting with 
Michigan R. R. and S. S. lines; chapter 76 of the General Laws of 1853 
provided for these cases. 
10. General Laws of Wis., 1872, Ch. 124: “An Act to confirm the con¬ 
solidation heretofore attempted of railroad companies existing under the 
laws of Wisconsin, with railroad companies existing under the laws of 
Illinois, under the name adopted by them.” 
