The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1857-08-13
THE
Decision Of the supreme Court
OF IOWA,
In the controversy betreen the State Of Ioua
and the
pEMolNE NAVIGATION 4 r. r. co.

brArE OF Iowa, !
on the relation nf
w. G.. Johnson, Prest, &c. supreme Court,
~. June Term, 1857
The Com'r Of the d. NJ.
River Imp ovement.
Points presented by The demurrer to the pc.
tition, suggested IN argument, and decided BY
the Court.
lst. Is the contract of June 9th. 1854, val.
ii ard subsisting? We are OF the opinion
that the contract does no. violate, and was no
rsnade in contravention of the act Of Congress
making the grant. Stockton Justice Contra
We are Of the opinion that the act of Janu
ary 18th, and January cath, 1883, Claws of lS-
81, pages 81 & 1922 lid not aad do not dis.
peise with the requirement Of the prior stat
ute, that the Governor should approve any
contract made Hereunder. Woodward j.
Contra.
We further conclude, however, that the ne.
cessity Of this approval has been waived by
the repeated aud express action Of the Execu-
tive and Legislative Departments of the Gov
srnment that BY the action of these depart,
Esxnts n construction and validity has been giv.
cn 10 said contract WHICH THE STATE - NOW
EsroPrLp Prom DENYING. lStockton J. Con.
tra.
The said contract does couforln substantial
ly and even technically with the requirements
Of the acts of the Legislature under which i,
was made. ISto,kton J. Contra.
We therefore conclude on the first PROPOSE
ton that the said contract of June 9, 1884, is
valid and subsisting. [s,ockton J. Contra.
2nd. Are the supplemental contr acts Of
June 9th, and June 2yth, 1854, Sept. 9th, and
Dee. 5th. 1885, valid aud subsistiaS between
tue parties?
vIt is objected thu ths assist antss dnties ceas.
et after the original contract was made, and
that therefore these supplemental contracts
,hculi have been made with the Commission
et and Register, and affirmed J the Governor,
and that il made with the Commissioner and
assistants. then the three should have united and
eSncurred, and a minority could not oct no,
rontrGct.
We conclude that so much Of section 4, act
at January u, 1883, as provides that the du-
tIss Of said assistant commissioners shall moi
extend any farther than to aid said commits
s,oner in negotiating such contracts or agree
ments as in said act are contemplated, was no,
intended to inhibN them from taking part in
any negotiation that might become necessary
Ia carry out the contract made, or to accom-
plish ths general object, and purposes, Of said
act, IN disposing Of the lands and work, ana Sc.
curing the improvement, but was only intend.
<a to provide that their duties should not ex.
tend to the other and various matters, devolv.
ing upon the principal commissioner in the
prosecution OF the improvement. lStocktor
}. Contra.
We hold that the assistant commissioner.
therefore might take part in ssch subsequent
negotiations and the commissioner and one oi
sae assistants, (being majority Of the board
could make valid contract. IStocktou j.
Contra.
The said supplements under the lAw requir-
"a the approval OF the governor, a. much a.
the original contract. Those dated June the
9th, and June 20, '54, we think though not thu.
approved, have been recognised aud sanction.
ed, by the action Of the two departments Of the
Government aud are BINDING and OF FORCE
10 like manner aud for the same reason that the
original contract is binding. [Stockton J Con.
ira % TO 20 much a. treats the action Of the
State as waving the necessity o. approval by
the Governor.
Woodward J. not concurring in the position
that the approval Of the Governor was neces.
sary.
As TO the contracts Of Sept 27th, and Do.
Gambler 5th, 1855, we think they are invalid
for want of the approval Of the Governor and
that there IL nothing sufficiently to show that
said contracts have bssn Recognised, approved
and aetsd upon BY the STATE 20 a 10 waive the
requirement Of approval.
Woodward ]. holding the approval unnec-
essary, but il necessary doubling whether the
subssqusnt acts on the part Of the STATE have
VA. been sufficient to amount to waiver a TO
asch contracts event.
We therefore conclude that the supplement
a eonirse;s Of June 9th, and JuLs 10Th, are
valid aId binding, and that those Of Sept 9th
aud Dee. 9Th, 1855, are not binding.
; Stockton J. Contra q 10 the first proposi.
tien, and Woodward J. Contra ss 10 the second.
! -. b the contract Of 29th Of December,
1es6. valid 4 bindings
20 Say - Il makes new contract or modi-
hss or changes former ones, il would seem