The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1860-04-14
ES'TABI4ISE1ED1

= an ID .--l1ssa.ll = = s.ars
! =. !. Z e b s usi.ss' S'i,.ss' Sc. 81
zhe Cos4ey of fkaelssn,) "a Is~s 80
. For Plaintiff Aarrisk - 1naR.ll-- a
le. sNe 0esence; Rankin, Miles { E
in. ossHlox o. ~ Cou11
4 Inis y an action upon seseual g SScns q -,
e eads Issued BY the CoaAg or Je1enou 1
of s2e 1urAngtenA Miaposd Railroad Compan,
= esaaened to the preseat plainsifne Defends
- snsrs r. 6ep petition, on The ground that ther
existed, BY Law, No authority n the counties i
: leaae the bonas escoapons On shicA IL sait
soanded. as ss@gaa 3ss ese saass
: Section ii4, Of the Code, prov,des th.. .s,.
= 3onnty Judge may submit to The pcon.e Of M
sosney at any regular election, OF . spseial elee
s'on called Tor that purpose, the question vheeh
e ne county win construct, Of aid 70 conssruct
! any road Or bridge which may call for an extra
oaa'nary expenditure" &c. And the question Ia
sn's case r. whether this section was intended bv
sne Legislature to include Railroads, or only he
ordinary county sads II this provision applies
70 railroads as wen AS ordinary county roads,
: then the county Of Jefferson WIS authorized "a
Issue the bonds and coupons involved in this suit
* Iis well settled by the decision Of the an
psems Court Of the United States that the Fed.
srai Courts win follow the Supreme Courts Of the
N ieyeral States in the construction of their own
eoAstitutions and laws.
we're otherwise, We should have in effect in.
the same State, the mischievous anomaly of two
different constitutions, and two different laws bv
judicial construction, and the Federal Courts
would have the power to set up in any State To-
cal and internal policy at war with the settled
policy ofthe State, founded upon its judicial de-
c'saons man might gain or lose his title by
changing his residence, and consequently the TO-
rum an which to prosecute or defend his rights
TO avoid the intolerable Inconvenience which
would result from such conflict Of laws the Su.
preme Court Of the United States have establish.
ed the rule to which have just referred
1t is therefore my duty to ascertain, if possible
what construction the Supreme Court of Iowa
have put upon the Section in question, and to |
fellow that Interpretation.
This question was first decided by the Supreme |
Court of Iowa at the June term, 1853, in the case
OF Dubuque County VS.. the Dubuque 4 Pacific
railroad There is no doubt that the case was
well considered-the question was directly before
the Court, and the judges were evidently fully
aware OF the importance of the precedest they
were abouttO establish. The Court held that
Section ia, of the Code, is applicable to rail-
roads, and that the county of Dubuque was au-
thorized to issue its bonds in pursuance of the
provisions Of the Code to aid in the construction
Of the Dubuque and Pacific Railroad This case
was decided before the bonds were issued, upon
an appeal taken from the decision of the County II
Judge ordering the vote.
The question was again before that Court (sce
4tb G. Greene, page lst) at the June or Decem-
Der term, 1854, upon petition praying for pro-
hhtion to the County Judge of Cedar county
against the Issuing of his warrants to the County
Treasury, to pay the interest becoming due on
the bonds which had been Issued. The Court
refused the prayer Of the petition, holding that {
the bonds we're authorized by the provisions Of ,
the Code. Tho Court expressly declared that it 9
was their intention to leave the question where
the previous decisions had left it." In the pre-
vious case of Dubuque County va Dubuque and :
Pacific Railroad Company, Judge Kinney dissent. !
ed but in the case just cited (State vs. Bissell,
4 G. Greene, $685. the Court was unanimous so $
far as this question rs concerned. I
Before the question arose again in our SUI
preme Court, in the case of Clappvs Cedar Coun- q
ty, 5th Clarke, Is, the Judges had been changed r
The question was made in that case by demurrer,
to apetition to recover the amount due upon GER i
tain coupons to the bonds ssuedby Cedar county L
wish to cal! particular attention to the very re-
language of Mr.. Justice Woodward, in i,
the opinion Of the Court. a
THAT next stage is this-do the counties Of b
this State possess this authority, whether inhe-
rently or by express provision II we were cal. Il
led upon to decide this question now, for the first
time for this State ekould certainly entertain
heavy doubts of the existence Of the power upon
my grounds, and if the attempt were made to 9
place it upOr Sec LA of the Code, under the Il
'ower to aid in constructing roads, we should D,
hink very lightly of the argument. If the pow it
IT exists, it must have some other foundation. G,
But this is subject on which change is disas- Y
rous. 1t is one on WHICH We are bound by for \
ner decisions. Such an one has been made, and II
he public and the world have acted upon it. To a
hange now, eo,d be the scorst Of all rsp.diatioa, CT
~dic;dl rspwd;atoA. The first decision on SUBJ G.
ect of this nature, by the highest Judicial tribq re
lal Of State, at time when the business Ct the
,ountry is moving on, is 6nal-it determines the C
,Olicy Of the State 1t is impossible to recede. is
The world waits and listens for the judicial de- D,
ermination, and then acts accordingly; and in n
his case has acted with vigor. st
This question was determined In the case of in
dubuque County VS.. the Dubuque l. Pacific Rail- &C
oed Company, 4 G. Greene, l, and in the State III
.. Bisseh, ID. S9a And five railways have RI
their progress across this State, and s,
everal millions Of dollars have been subscribed cr
y our counties Whatever We may think of this &C
policy, the Court carnot arrest it consistent C
', with amy regard to the judicial character re
he trust must now rest upon the intelligence Of Of
he people and their representatives. o.
Let US next see what the Legislature has done, fe
that we are nowin the 'early times" ey
then coatemporaneous construction arisea By la
lstute Of 1886, (chapter l2s, 1855, 1907 it is to
nacted that, whenever any company shall hare ca
eceived, or may hereafter receive the bonds of ou
ny city or county upon subscription Of stock by 81
nch city or county, such bonds may bear inter- to
st At any rate not exceeding ten per cent, &c, on
nd the provisions Of the act shall apply to any II
abroad bonds which have been heretofore is- Il
asd, a. we'll as these which may hereafter be is d
aed. BY the same statute (chspter l4s, sl9,)it oy
enacted that, in "all cases where county, city,
r town corporations hsye, or may hereafter be- OK
ome stockholders in railroads. or other private ~
It shall not be lawful to Issue the tn
onds until, &c.,-provided that nothing in this ha
ct SHALL in any way, affect corporation rights for Of
ny contracts or subscription heretofore made m,
it'll any railroad company or corporation, for III
10 issuing of county corporation honda" da
eNow, when these deciaious and this legisla- -