The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1862-06-24
Important Decision!



The Supreme Court of the State, nov
in session at Des Noines, rendered de-
I cision, on The 18th instant, IN the case
between the Burlington and Missouri
River Railroad Company vs.. the County OF
Wapello. The case involves the validity
of county and city subscriptions to the
stock of railroad companies in the
State of Iowa. The decision was made
by full Bench, with entire unanimity
and the opinion in the case was delivered
by Judge Lowe, who reviews the entire
legislation of the State bearing on the
subject, refers to the contradictory deci-
sions in our own State, as we'll as in other
States, and finally considers the question
on its own merits and on principle, and
comes to the very satisfactory conclusion
that county and city corporations have
not now, end never had, authority to
make subscriptions to the stock of rail
road companies, and that the Legislature
is not competent, under the Constitution
Of the State, to confer any such authority
on civil corporations.
The opinion concludes in the following
terms:
For the various reasons which we have
herein stated, we have to say that we are
deliberately of the opinion that the Gen
efal Assembly of this State cannot pass
valid law authorizing counties or cities, in
their corporate capacities. to become stock
holders in railroad companies-that as u
matter of fact no such act has ever yet
been passed BY the Legislature of this
State-that with or without such legisla-
tive authority counties have no corporate
power to take such subscription--tha
the election held as aforesaid, in Wapelo
county, for the purpose of taking vote
whether the county should not subscribe
one hundred thousand dollars as stock in
the Burlington and Missouri Railroad
Company was nugatory and void-that
the company cannot in law compel the
county aforesaid to issue her bonds in
| pursuance of said yote-and finally, that
the judgment below dismissing plaintiff s
writ Of mandamus should be affirmed.
In enunciating this decision, we dc.
sire to say that we have followed our con
victions of right, of duty, and of law.
which seem to take no denial We could
not bring ourselves to consent to surren.
der great fundamental right, which had
cost long ages Of conflict to extort from
the governing GLASSES in favor of the
governed, and which not to vindicate,
lying, as it did, at the very foundation Of
this controversy, would have been steE
backward towards despotism.
/ Nevertheless, we are not insensble that
in doing SO, at this late day, We are liable
to expose ourselves and our people to the
charge of insincerity and bad faith, and
! perhaps that which is still worse, inflic,
. a great wrong upon innocent creditors
!. and bond-holders: consequences which
n we would most gladly have avoided, if W,
! could have done so, and been true to III,
: obligations of conscience and principle
Yet IT is one of those unfortunate misad
: ventures which sometimes will happen il
the best governed and bes: intentionet
j. communities.
! We know, however, that there is such
thing as moral sense and public faitl
!. which may be successfully appealed to
: when the law is impotent to afford relief
These sentiments, We cannot but believe
e still reside in the hearts and conscience
Of our people, and may be invoked to saw,
themselves and their State from seemin,
: bad faith.
Affirmed.