The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1860-04-14
County Bonds for Railroads,
JUDGE LOVES DECISION.


JUDGE LOVES DECISION.
RoBERr Nom In the District Court
ps. Of the United States for
Jefferson County. Iowa.
For plaintiff, Hall, Harrington and Hall.
For defence, Rankin, Miller & Enster.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
This 10 an action upon several coupons to
certain bonds issued by the County OF JET
ferson to the Burlington and Missouri r. r.
Co., and assigned TO present plaintiff. De-
PENDANT demurs to the petition on tho ground
| that there existed, by law, no authority 10
the counties TO issne the bonds or coupons
on which the suit is founded.
| Section ia of the Code provides that
"the County Judge may submit to the peo-
pie of his county, at any regular election, or
| special election called for that purpose, the
question whether the county will construct,
| or aid to construct, any road or bridge which
may call for an extraordinary expenditure
&c. And the question In this case 10, wheth-
| err this section was intended by the Legisla-
ture to include Railroads, or only the ordi.
nary County roads. If this provision ap-
| plies to Railroads. as we'll as ordinary county
roads, then the county of Jefferson was au-
| thorized to issue the bonds and coupons in
volved in this suit.
| II is we'll settled by the decision OF the
Supreme Court of tho United States that
the Federal Courts will follow the Supreme
| Courts of the several States In the construc-
ton of their own constitutions and laws.
III it were otherwise, we should have in
effect IN tho same State, the misch.evous
anomaly of two different constitutions, and
n. r. s,.4. asa1
and the Federal Courts would have the pow.
er to set up in any State local and internal
policy at war with the settled policy of the
State, founded upon its judicial decisi ons.--
A man mi ght gain or lose his title by chang
ing bis residence, and consequently the TO-
rum in which to prosecute or defend his
rights. TO avoid the intolerable noonves
nience which would result from such con-
Hict of laws, the Supreme Court of the Uni.
ted States has established the rule | have
just referred to.
, 1T 10 therefore my duty to ascertain il pos
sibie, what construction the Supreme Court
OF Iowa have put upon the section, and to
follow that Interpretation.
. This question was first decided by the SUI
D preme Court of Iowa at the June term, 1853
la tina Case of Dnhnqna County xs-- the nu,
buque l. Pacific X. X. There IL no doub,
that the case WAS well considered, the
question was directly before the Court, and
: the Judges were evidently fully aware Of the
/ imE ortancs of the precedent they were abou,
TO establish. The Court held that sector
la of tho Code, is applicable to railroads
!. and that the county of Dubuque was au
: thorized to issue it's bonds in pursuance oil
e the provisions OF the Code, to aid in the con
struetion Of the Dubuque and Pacific Rail
nuaa 1nat lad kafr 81
bonds were issued, upon an appeal takel
from the decision Of the County Judge or
o dering the vote.
Tho question was agnin before that Cour
see 4th g. Greene, page lst,) at the Jun
- or December term, 1854, upon q petition
% praying for prohibition to the Count,
Ii Judge OF Cedar county against the isssuinj
A of bis warrants to the County Treasury, q
pay the interest becoming due on the bond
y which had been issued The Court refuse
1t the prayer OF the petition, holding that tn
1t bonds were authorized by the provisions 0
"a the Code. The Court expressly declare
that it was their intention TO leave the ques
10 ton where the previous decisions had LEI
70 IT." In the previous case Of Dubnqu
3 County vs.. Dubuque l. Pacific r. K. 90
!. Judge Kinney dissented. but in the case ju,
cited Estate vs.. Bissell, 4 q. Greene, 1913
the Court was unanimous so far as this Ques
ton is concerned.
Before the question arose again In o,
J. Supreme Court, in the case Of Clapp W. o.
der county, 5th Clarke, Is, the Judges ha
70 been changed. The question WAS made
3. the case by demurrer TO petition to reco,
10. or the amount due upon certain coupons
:. the bonds issued BY Cedar county. / vii
, TO call particular attention to the very +
20 markable language OF Justice Woodward,
NJ pronouncisg the opinion OF the Court.
1T "That next stage 10 this--do tho COUNT
Ia OF this State possess this authority, whesh
inherently or by express provision? III !
- were called upon TO decide this question nc
os for the frst time for this State, We shou
he certainly entertain heavy doubts OF the 9
on istenoe Of the power upon any grounds, ai
I, il the attempt we're made to place ID up,
IN section la OF the Code, under the power
aid aid in constructing roads. We ahorld thi
m very lightly of the argument. Ii the pow
in. exists, it must have some other foundation
:. But this is subject on which chan
''n 10 DISASTROUS. II il enc on which We I
mt. bound by former decisions. Such m o
ind has been made, and the public and the wo
in have acted upon il. To change now, wor
m be the worst Of reputation, judicial repu
alton. The first decision on subject
WIS nnAuIo, ny LUG nlRhast Juuiol6i tIfDul
the Of State, 1T time when the business
IGN the country 10 moving on, is fnal--it
ght nns.,hla - racsas ~ .asss
go listens for the judicial determination. =
wer then acts accordingly; and in this ease
OF acted with vigor.
49, This question was determined in the .,
s.o OF Dubuque County vs.. Dubuque 4 pac
) 10 X. X. Co., 4 @. Greene, /, and in the ST,
W. Bissell, 4, lib. S28. And Ave railw,