Section 21. It was at one time a matter of grave controversy among courts of the highest respectability, whether furnishing aid to the building of railroads was so far a corporate purpose that a municipal corporation could, even in pursuance of express legislative authority, lawfully issue its bonds or incur indebtedness in futherance of such purpose.

16 11 Cyc, pages 467 and 468.

17 Power to borrow money is not an incident to local political government, and upon principle a county cannot exercise it in the absence of express authority of law so to do. Hewitt vs. School Dist., 94 III., 528; Law vs. The People, 87 III., 385; Newgass vs. New Orleans, 21 Amer. St. Rep., 368; County of Hardin vs. McFarlan, 82 III., 138. 18 See numerous cases cited in 11 Cyc, page 503, footnotes.

But there is now a substantial agreement among the courts of the country, that aid to railroad building is so far a corporate purpose, that municipal corporations may, when there is no adverse constitutional legislation, after being expressly authorized by the legislature so to do, in the exercise of its own discretion, subscribe for stock in a contemplated railroad, or make a donation to aid in constructing it.19

19 The rule is well settled that there is no inherent power in municipal corporations to aid in the construction of railroads, either by becoming subscribers to the capital stock of the railroad company, or by making dona tions to such company of money or bonds, but such power can be given only by express legislative provision, and the authority, when conferred, must be strictly pursued. Choisser vs. The People, ex rel, 140 III., 21.