Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1862-06-25

n n. RICHARDSON. EAito'.
WEDNESDAY MORNING.. JUNE 80. leo.
1.poRrANr DECIsION..RAlLROAD
BONDS.
rhe state Of Iowa ex rel. Inc H,,! n
Ss.~eoo and Missouri Rive! Nos.Oe~
rnEn:.v ~. n. County Of Wape'io.
=, Mru,rYAL CORPORATIONS CANNOT -sCo..
Sr',cxmoLpsRs IN RAILROAD ConroKATioHs
l., olsLA avs Povss. The Lssisstuf: % sae
State Of Iowa has no power 10 enact -
thorixins counties or cities, TO become - oo'-
nor.,ions. stockholders in railroad companies.
2. STATUS CONSTRUED AND CASE ov.ssVL.D'
The Legislature did mot attempt BY the Provis-
ions of SEQ ia, Code Of 1851, or othsrw'se,
confer such power upon he counties o. tne
State; ovsf,oIin9 Dae.g.s S Gss Gsyaa... = c
Greene l, and following Sssks' Ct a. o. '"e
County Of Scott, 10 Iowa, I6S.
Appeal from the Wapeuo Dissriet Court.
TUESDAY, June 18th, 1852.
Tho facts are fully stated in the Opinion Of the
Court. D. Rorer for the appellant. james j.
Wa.on and Clay caldcsh for the appellee.
Lowe, Jon the oath day of Sep
TENDER, 1853, . special election was
held 10 the county Of Wapello, agrees
bly, to notice previously published BY
order Of the County Judge for taking
the votes Of the qualified electors 10 ia
vor of or against the proposition Tor
said county to subscribe 100000 10
tho capital stock OF the Burlington and
Misso2rl Railroad Company, to be paid
in the bonds of said county, rcdeemable
IN twenty years, bearing an intere stnot
exceeding 8 per cent, payable annually,
to be Issued upon the call of said Com
pany, IN indictments not exceeding 8
per cent. per month. Said election re-
suited 10 casting ,O67 votes in favor OF
aud 2Os votes against the subscription.
In accor dance the. ewith the County
Judge subscribed 900 shares Of 800
each, and afterwards responded to the
first six calls, by issuing and delivering
to said company the requisite lumber
of bonds to the amount Of thirty thous-
and dollars. Due notice Of all the other
calls covering the residue II said sub
sorip,ion was given, but not observed !;
and finally the further issuing of bonds
in payment of said stock was refused,
and ,hcreupon on the 3Oth day Of March,
1859, an Information was filed upon Il G
relation Of said railroad company, ask
ing for writ of nadnRamus 10 compel
said county to issue lts bonds for the
balance of the unpaid stock. This in
formation was dismissed by the court
upon the demurrer Of the defendant, al
leging in substance as the ground there
of, that the said railroad subscription on
the part Of the county and its agents
was not only without the authority Of
law, but 10 violation of the Constitution
Of this State.
The record of the proceeding is now
before us. presenting the same question
in all its unrelleveu force and perplexity,
to be decided, we trust, upon principle
rather than upon authority. The gu
preme tribunals Of some fourteen or fit.
teen States have expressed their opin'
ions upon the exercise OF this power by
municipal corporations, without reach
ing, strange to say, conclusions that ART
satisfactory to the inquiries and con
seriousness of the public heart. AM
hence the renewed agitation Of the sub
jet, which, doubtlessly, will conlinu
TO obtrude itself upon the courts OF til
country, year after year, until they hav
finally settled it upon principles of ad
Indication which are known to be ofth
class of those that are laid up anon
the fundamentals OF the law, and whic
especially will leave the capital of Pr
vate individuals where the railroad er,
when it dawned upon the world, foun'
it, namely, under the control and domin
ion Of those who have it, to be employ
cd in whatever field of industry and en-
tcrprise they themselves might judg
best.
The question, as presented by the re
cords in tins case, assumes duple
form, and is to be considered I'm der tw
aspects.
First, whether at the time this sui
scription was made, the Legislature ha
conlerred upon the counties Of this Sta,
the power OF subscribing to the capt;
stock ofrailsay companies if so, the,
secondly, whether it was competent fc
the Legislature to pass valid act gi,
Ill. such power.
The first Division of the subject pr,
sents no new question in this State, {
in this court.
The iest adjudication upon the sam
was in the case Of Dubuque County a
Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Lompt
ny, a q, Greene r. ~ where it ",
held by majority Of the court that tn
power had been conferred by s ia {
the Code of 1851, followed in its emu,
citation by very clear and able dissen
ing opinion f,om Judge Kinney.
The last decision by our predecessor
was in the case Of Stokes ct al, as. tn
County of Scot, no Iowa, K. 1876
where it was held that this power ha
rot been conferred.
The intermediate decisions were a
acquicscence In the former Of these, b
two members of the court, not upon tn
ground that the Legislature had in ia,
authorized tho exercise of any sue
power by the cities or counties in tn
State, (for this they had expressed yer
great doubts about, and affected not I
oe:'eve,) but because they felt then
selves 50 much committed and tramme
Ell by the previous decision and snbs
qusnt legislative recognition, that the
u'd not feel themselves at liberty, fro,
puoNc considerations, to unscttie Ii
CONSTRUCTION which the first decisio
had gwen to the code on the subject.
In this aspect OF Tho c.eo !. 81, ,