Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1858-11-24

CDlLkNs ltAlE1aL|f vs. NAN
ceded to the Mayor and Aldermen Of the city
Of Memphis, for the use and beBsst Of said
city"
We viii not undertake to discuss the right
OF the Government to make this donation, nor
the right Of the city to accept it. But we think
it is very Questionable whether, under this do
nation. the City Council could appropriate the
yard and its revenues to the construction OF a
Railroad ia the State Of Arkansas, entirely
bevoDd the jurisdiction Of the city OF Memphis,
a. well as Of the State of Tennessee. It GER
family REQUIRES a very great latitude Of con-
struction to Justify such an appropriation of
The ward and its revenues. We do not think,
upon a strict construction Of the Language
which We have quoted, that such an aPproPri-
alton OF the Navy Yard is authorized BY the
meaning Of the terms " use and bensft" Of the
city Of Memphis, as used BY Congress in the
act Of donation to the city. We fOrbsar to 60
into details on this point, though nothing would
be easier than TO pursue the subject; and,
therefore, dismiss it with the remark that II
in 1854 the people Of the city had anticipated
such a disposition Of the yard, we do not be-
Isvs that there would have been fifty men in
the city in favor Of its acceptance from The
! Federal Government.
The committee, in it's report, speaking Of the
rights and powers Of a municipal corporation,
holds the following language; That all mu-
nicisal corporations being artificial creations
or exercising only saeh rights and powers as
by tie act Of their creation are conferred upon
them specifically, OF which exist by inPliea-
uon growing out of the very necessities of
/ heir being. they do not stand like an indiEid-
usf member Of society, retaining certain nat
uraI and inalienable rights, and stript only Of
such as are necessary to surrender for the
msinteuancs Of a Just government; but the
idea OF their creation being the accomplish
msnt Of q specific purpose not 50 easily OF ef-
tsctuaHy attained under a general and common
svstem Of laws adapted to a State or county,
they can only exercise rights and powers ade-
ouErs 20 that attainment and commensurate
with the organic law Of their sxistenee. An
individual may exercise every right and power
not prohibited by law; a corporation can ex-
srciss none but those which are granted BY It's
charter. or such az are Incidental and necessary
to the purpose Of its creation"
This paragraph expresses our views Of the
rights and powers Of a municipal corporation
very clearly, and we can only express our as
| -t,nigbment that the committee, while holding
such onInious, could fall into such errors as
are elsewhere contained in lie report. We be-
Hsye that The judgment Of mankind generally
VIII sustain the principle that all legislative
bodies, acting under written constitutions or
charters, have only The ssthOrity to exercise
such powers as are conferred in the e~onstitu-
tons or charters under which they act, or such
as arise By direct and necessary imPlieatioa
from the powers that are granted in then.
In view Of this well settled principle Of con-
sfruction Of constitutions and charters, We
would ask from what portion Of our city char
ter did the Board Of Mayor and Aldermen Of
January 80, 1851, derive the authority to as
sumo the payment Of s3OO,0OO Of the bonds Of
! The Nempbis and Little Rock Railroad Com.
papy with interest at seven per cent. per an
= mum. We have examined the city charter
carefully and can find no authority for such as
: sunp.iop: on the other hand, We thinl
that such action on the pant Of the City Coun
= ell was in direct CONFIRMATION Of the prOVis
: ions Of our city charter; and consequently car
: not be regarded as legally or morally binding
= UPON the CITY. To this opinion we differ Verl
widely from the committee whose report VI
are now considering. In that report we hnt
The following singular declaration, which v.
think claims for the City Council suthoTit,
: which goes to The extreme Of legislative dis
erection
HTbe committee are Of the opinion that To
= Board Of Mayor and Aldermen had the right I
q issue its o6n bonds or notes, having one yea
OF thirty years TO run, based upon aud eonfne
!, to the Navy Yard property as a security, bu
4 they do not fnd il necessary 70 present reason
70 to sustain the position, as the question has nc
d been directly presented"
N We commend the discretion Of the commit
tee in aOt attempting TO assign reason for " Il
D. position in the above sentence, isasmueh q
Of if it had made the attempt it would have soc
ls found By bitter experience, that it had undsl
taken a task which no man, be his powers
Sc reasoning or sophistry what they may, cOul
ever accomplish
g To show the utter fsllaey Of the claim
IS power in the City Council to issue the bono
OF the city in the way mentioned by the con
: mittee, we VIII quote a short paragraph fro
the last amendments 20 our city charter, pas
I'd Cd BY the Legislature of Tenusssss, Februar
/, %, 1856:
= That hereafter the Mayor and Aldermen @
the CITY Of Memphis shall not have the pows
TO issue the bonds OF the city, having longs
than one year 70 run, for any purpose. An
section 3 Of article 4 Of the act to amend Il
Charter OF the city Of Memphis, passed Eel
, ruary 18Th, 1854, be, and tie said section
hereby repealed. And that al laws and par
OF laws, authorizing the issuance Of tine boni
l BY said city, Be, and the same are hereby, r
pesled."
ls There is only one exception in the city Cha
l. ter to the absolute and unqualified ProhibitiO
D. to issue time bonds BY the city Of Msmphi
and that exception is, hat If after twenty day
E. notice the people Of The city shall vote in fav
,s thereof, the Board OF Mayor and AldermI
nay Issue the bonds Of the city for the sum
to $4,000, running for thirty years, and besril
six per cent per snnum interest, for the pu
!, pose OF procuring lots and buildings (
ie the city schools.
ID l. must be remembered that the smendmel
le 70 our CITY Charter, which We have qaOt
I. above. was passed By the legislature Of Il
SAT-. after the Navy Yard had been donatl
be 10 the city and that IL die Legislature h'
q designed ts make an exception in favor of 4
ss Navy Yard property, as a basis for the Use
O. anee Of time bonds by the city, ss claimed
the esumittee, it would have expressed it, al
On not have left a power 80 important absolute
forbidden the City Council.
Yet, notwithstanding this strong prohibits
to the Council to issue the bonds Of The cityf
as a longer term than one ysar-ths Board
le MAYOR and Aldermen have done In fact and
be effect to the city the same thing that thl
would have done il they had issued their oV
e bonds in behalf OF the Memphis aud Lit
: Rock Railroad Company, running for hftel
Of years and bearing seysn per cent. per annur
such an issuance Of bonds by the city wOa
= have been illegal for two reasons: LIST,
would have been in direct violation Of the eli
ls charter. 2nd, The rate Of interest would hal
y been higher than the laws Of Tennessee sllO'
We have never yet learned from what sour
ed the City Council Of Memphis derived the rigI
i to suthorizs by its own act the issuance Of d
- legations either by itself or others bearing
az higher interest than six per cent. The Lsgi
%lsture, il all its scts Authorizing the issusn,
Of time bonds by our city, has limited the "a.
Of interest to six per cent. This single fact
: sufficient to prove the ineg4lity Of The tran
action 10 question. We presume that no sa
nan 10 Teanessss believes that if the L-sisl
a. ture had authorized the City Council Of Msl
phis to assume the payment Of 100000 Of Il
- bonds Of the MsnFhls and Little Rock Ra.
ng road Company, it would have allowed the "a
-