The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1860-04-14

cannot arrest IL consistently, with any regard
to the judicial character. The trust must
now rest upon the Intelligence OF the people
and their representatives.
Let VA next see what the Legislature has
done, remembering that we are now in the
"early times" when oontsmporaneous CON.
struction arises. BY statute OF 1885,
(chapssr l2S, 1855, 1907 it 10 enacted that
"Whenever any company shall have resolved
or may hereafter receive, the bonds Of any
city or county upon subscription to the stock
by sush city or county, suoh bonds may bear
interest Ut any rate not exceeding ten per
cent, )" TO-, and the provisions OF the act
shall apply to any railroad bonds which have
been heretofore issued, az we'll ~ those
which may hereafter be issued. BY the
same statute [chapter l49, 2i9) it 10 enacted
that Sin all cases where county, city or town
corporations have, or may hereafter become
stockholders in railroads or other private
companies, it shall not be lawful TO issue the
bonds until, &c.,-providipg that nothing in
this act shall, in any way affect corporation
rights for any contracts or subscription here
toforo made with any railroad company or
corporation for the issuing of county corpo-
ration bonds"
"Now, when these decisions and this leg
islation are regarded, does any lawyer ex
pect this Court to overturn ell that has been
done upon the faith in them, whatever our
present individual opinion may be2 We be-
lieve not"
The next case in order 10 that OF King vs..
Johnson. Iowa Rep. 266.
This was an action upon coupons, precise
ly like the one now at the bar. The defend
ant demurred, and assigned the following
| among the causes OF demurrer: "That the
said promises are void upon their face, for
| the reason that the county has no power or
authority, under the laws of the State, to
make tho sAme.n
Justice Woodward, in delivering the opin-
| ion of the Court, said:
"The question whether counties have pow
err, under the laws Of this State, to subscribe
| to the stock of railway company, and thus
| to assist in this species OF road, has been
fully considered 10 this Court, in the case OF
Clapp VS.. Cedar County, 5 Iowa, Is The
question is not argued 10 this case at the bar
and the counsel do not appear TO look for .
re- ex animation Of il. Since the decision OF
the former case the Court has seen no ooea-
sion for change OF its views, aud the cub
ject will not again be discussed in tho pres
ent case"
The subject was again before the Court in
MsMillsn 70. Boylss, County Judge, Iowa
sos. The question was evidently considered
| in that case, for Chief Justice Wright, in
i bis Published opinion IN ths subsequent case
of Young Stokes VS.. SCOTT County, says,
referring to what was decided In McMillen
VS.. Boyles. ssThe power OF the county to
take stock Ia recognised" lin McMillen vs..
Boyles) by reference to the cases previously
/ adiudieated, and the case turned upon the
question Of the power OF the Legislature to
iegaiize the irregularity in the manner oil
submitting the proposition" Moreover JUS
tice Woodward, in giving the opinion OF the
Court In McMiilen va. Boyles, says: "Bus
inasmuch as that body 1.-THE Legislature car
confer the authority and has conferred il
we conceive that the same body may remedy
defect in the exercise of it."
The question has also been decided by tht
Supreme Court OF Iowa, in the three cases o
Garnes VS.. Robb, Alger vs.. Robb, and Jink
, ms va. Robb. These cases are not yet re
ported, but we have in Judge Wright's print
ed opinion, already referred to, Statement
OF them as follows:
, "in the three cases OF Garnes, Alrer ant
Jinkins vs.. Robb, lJune term, 1851, th
: County Treasurer had levied upon persona
property, to satisfy q tax thus voted. Tn
: owners brought traspass and replevin, and
/ among other grounds, urged that the count
had no right to levy and collect a tar for thi
j purpose. The question was regarded a. set
tied by the previous cases, and Was dispose,
/ of by simply referring to them"
\ In McMilen VS. the County Judge an
. Treasurer OF Lee County, Iowa 1872, Chic
Justice Wright, in giving his opinion, says
Z ssThe power OF county to take stock in
!. company, organized for the purpose Of con
|. structing railroad or other public improve
= ment, though the same hss been recognize
n by majority OF this Court, in the Follow
!. ing cases: Getting the cases already rsferre
toy While have never CONQUERED in thi
4 ruling, and still deny the power, yet it ma
! now, suppose, be regarded 40 settled"
n Such is the long and unbroken current 0
: decisions by the highest court OF the Stat,
. upon the faith OF which the citiEens OF th
q and other States have invested millions
il these bonds. Our people have received th
A consideration for these bonds. In som
- cases the roads have been actually construc
II ed. This 10 certainly the case 80 far 40 Il
d bonds now In suit are concerned. The pet
! pie Of Jefferson county are in the full enjoy
II ment Of tho railroad for the construction
10 which these bonds were given. Having tn,
!. by the decisions OF our highest court, il
a ducsd people to lend rs their money, and b
\. ing in the full enjoyment OF the consider
= ton it is proposed that by s'she worst Of I
pudiation-jud,cialr epodiation," Ne shoa
ur get rid Of paying these coupons. Surs
3. this wonld justly be regarded by oil q
I'd world as nothing less than judicial fra.
ia which, next to pious fraud, 10 the wol
" Of frauds. Our counties have been, it mn
10 be admitted, involved 10 great misfortun
sb for this county indebtedness is grievo
e. misfortune. Il 10 very bad thing. 1t
in Deen ail wrong from the hrst. a. An ins
vidual, Ihave ever been opposed to it.
en- have never in single instance given "a
ar TO any county loan to railroads. II 10 y,
ua proposed that Ne add TO our misfortune /
~ disgrace OF reputation. But county debt
i'd not tho greatest OF evils-insolvsncy itself
8. . less misfortune than the loss Of . charl
nd ter for integrity. The one may be retriev
- TIA thax naraS Thu iadicial xaS