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

ts5ssr Il 8 .
.Fsass faAa' anffsss "a sss xsxss fs4ss.s
s.ssssg4s ~ assRAsssS go sss sss8ss ~
fAsiswa, md theI s1Ajsss vim not aeain be |
/ cu1sed y the present cass.s h
! ~ sabject vas again before the Court IN !
hillen =. Boyles, County Judge sth Iowa sos,
T'hs qssstina uasl syl indy conaidessd II j
case for Chief Js1tics wrieht IN hid spablisl
opinion IN the subsequent csse Of Young Stokes
Scott County. says, referring 70 what vas de
dsd in McNillen ~ Roylss: !. zxe po.er 81
, Cosaly 70 take Stock i recognized = In Mon
Ian = Boylesl BY reference to he cases preyio,
" adjudicated. and the casc turned upon i
question Of the power Of the LegiSlaturc to lcs
In To irregularity In the nsnner Of submitti,
the proposition. ." Moreover, Judge Woodw ward,
giving tho opinion Of the Court in NcNillcn
Boyies, says But, inaanacl a. that body ii
Lsgtsla ture) easeoefsr ~ ss6kori,y and has %
JerredA We conceive that the same body m.
remedy adefect in the exercise Of a.~
The question has also been decided bv the s
preme Court ofIowa, in the three cases Of Garn,
- Robb, Alger -. Robb and Jinkins ~. Robb The,
cases are not yet reported, but We have in judo
Wnghss printed opinion, already referred to.
statement Of them as follows:
"in the three cases Of Garnes, Alser and Jenl
ins ss. Robb( June Term, 1852 the County Trea,
urer had leviedupon personal property, to satisf
tax thus voted. The owners brought Trespa,
and replevin and, among other grounds, urgedth.
the County had no right to levy and collect a ia
for this purpose. The question was regarded q
settled BY the previous cases, and was dispose,
Of BY simply referring to them.r a4'
In NcNillen ss the County Judge and Treas
urer Of Lee County, 9 Iowa ss2, Chief Justic,
Wright, in giving his opinion, says: " The powe,
OF county to take stock in company, organized
for the purpose of constructing Rail Road o,
other public improvement, though the same has
been recognized by majority Of this Court, in
the following cages letting the cases already re.
ferred to- While have never concurred in this
railing, and still deny the power, yet it may now,
suppose, be regarded as settled"
Such is the long and unbroken current of de-
cisions by the highest court of the State. upon
the faith Of which the citizens of this and other
States have invested millions in these county
bonds Our people have received the considera-
tion for these bonds. In some cases the roads
have been actually constructed. This il certainly
the case so far as the bonds now in suit are con.
cerned The people of Jefferson County are in
the full enjoyment of the Rail Road, for the con-
struction OF which these bonds were given. Hav-
ing thus, by the decisionssof our highest Court,
induced people to lend us their money, and being
in the full enjoyment Of the consideration it Is
proposed that by "the worst ofrepudiation-Ju-
iicial repudiation," We should get rid Of the pay
nent Of these coupons Surely this would be just
y regarded by all the world as nothing less than
! Judicial fraud (Which, next to pious fraud, is
he worst OF frauds Our counties have been il
must be admitted, involved in great misfortune;
or this county Indebtedness is grievous misfor.
ane. 1t Ia very bad thing. It has been all
wrong from the first. As an individual, have
ver been opposed to i'll have never in single
Instance given vote to any County loan to Rail
soads. 1t is now proposed that we add to our
Misfortune the disgrace Of repudiation: But
,ounty debt is not the greatest of evils-insol.
ency itself is less misfortune than the loss of
haracter for integrity The one may be retrived
the other never can This judicial reputation
Ow would lead to the utter distraction of all |
ublic credit and Of all public confidence in the
eople and Government of this State When |
nd what may we trust, would naturally be asked |
nce your Courts of justice have proved unwor.
by Of condolences
1t is Twain to attempt to get rid Of tho odium
this reputation by nice criticism upon the /
'asons which particular judges have from time
} time given for their opinions Still more vain
it to count upon our fingers the number of ST.
mt or dissenting Judges vino have not sanctian-
! the construction Of the Code, authorizing the
sue of these bonds in order to show that in the
ggregate then, majority Of the Judges have
cen opposed to that construction. A majority
the Court is the Court so far as the VALIDITY Of
heir decisions are concerned, and the world just
regards the decisions Of that majority as the
ne evidence of what the Law is.
l have locked carefully at the case Of Young
Eokes q. al. rs Scott County, and am clearly Of
e opinion, that it does not overrule any Of the
evious cases referred to in this opinion. Indeed,
could scarcely have been the intention of the
urt to oyerrule these cases. without SAYING so;
oung Stokeset. ii, was decided at the December
.rm 1859, and We have seen that as late as the
me Term Of the same year, the Court had af-
med the doctrine established in the previous
ses. The case of Young Stokes & Co. rs Scott
,unty was an application for an injunction 10
stain the county from issuing the bond& n
In tia previous cases, from Clapp ,x. Cedar
,unty to Jenkins Is. Robb, the bonds had been
'ued and they were in the hands of innocent
lrchasers. The Court therefore in those cases,
ough entertaining doubt as to the true con-
ruction of Section ia Of the Code, acquiesced
the previous decisions. Judge Wright, him
IT, expressed his acquiescencc in NcMillen s2
e County Judge and Treasurer Of Lee County. ,
It when the case Of ioung Stokes a az u.s.
ott County arose, under wholly different cir
instances and involving none of the evil cor
quences alluded to by Judge Woodward in
app rs Cedar County. Judge Stockton concur
4 with Judge Wright, in restraining the issue
the Bonds. Judge Woodward dsscnted alto
ther even in this case-Juiges not unfrequently
i constrained to acquiesce in settled decisions
en- against their clear conviction of what the
' ia So it was, | presume, with Judge Stock !
. in the case Of oiapp as. Cedar County and the
ses following that decision But when the
estion arose involving wholly different circum-
lnces and different consequences, Judge steck-
. might With great propriesy return to his
ginal opinion. Judge woodward indeed very
sinctly intimates in Clapp r. Cedar County
It the Judgment Of the Court would have been
fercnt but for the mischievous consequences Of
erruling the previous adjudication. T.
Hence in Young Stokes and others ss. Scott
unity, we find Judge Stockton declaring in the
ne breath that the counties Of this State, under
. provisions of Section ll4-ll6 of the Code
ye mo Dover to subscribe to the caDital stock