The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1864-04-16

Il
In the opinions which have just been
delivered, have not been able to concur.
But I should have contented myself with
the mere expression Of dissent, If it were
not that the principle on which the court
rests its decision is one not only essentially
wrong, in my Judgments, but one which,
if steadily adhered to 10 future, may lead
to consequences of.he most serioaschar,
acter. In adopting that principle, this
court has,. as | shall attempt to SHOW,
gone in the present case step IN adj
vance of anything heretofore ruled BY it
ON the subject, and has taken q position
which must bring it into direct and I'M
seemly conflict with the judiciary Of the
States. FF |
Under these circumstances, do not |
feel at liberty to decline placing upon the
records of the court the reasons which
have forced me, however reluctantly, to
a conclusion different from that of che
other members of the court.
The action ia the PRESENT case Is on
bonds Of the City of Dubuque, given in
payment Of certain shares Of the capital
stock Of a railroad company, whese road
runs from said city westward The court
below held, that the bonds were void for
want OF authority in the city to subscribe
aud pay for such stock II is admired
that the Legislature had, as to one set of
bonds, passed an act intended to confer
such au hority on the city, and it is
claimed that il had done 80 as to all
the bonds. ~.
I do not propose to discuss this latter
question.
Ii is said, in support Of the judgment Of
the court below, that all such grants OF
power by the legislature of Iowa to any
municipal corporation is in conflict with
the constitution OF the State, and there
fore void. In support of this view of the
subj ,ct. the cases CT Stokes vs.. Scott coun
ty, 10 Iowa r., l66, and the State at the
relation of the Burlington and NJ. Rail
road Co. v. The County of Wapello. Is
Iowa. 1913. are relied on.
10 the last mentioned case, the county
of Wapelo had agreed to take stock Ia q
company whose road passed through the
county, but had afterwards refused to is.
sue the bonds which bad been voted by
the majority of the legal voters There.
lator prayed writ of mandamus to com
pei the officers of the county TO issue tht
bonds srn ts*rsy
One question raised in the discussion
was, whether section ia of the code q
Iowa of 1851 was intended a &c
authorize the counties of the State
to tske stock 10 railroad com.
psnies. Aud another was, that con.
.eeding such to be the fair construction o.
that section of the code, was it cons.i
tulionai. s< So
The supreme court, in very elahorat,
and well,reasoned opinion, held there va
no constitutional power in the legislator,
to confer such authority ON the counties
or on any municipal corporation. Tbi
decision was made in case where th,
question fairly arose, and where it wa
necessary and proper that the court shout,
decide it. 1t was decided by full bencl
and with unanimity. 1t Was de
cided by the court of highes
resort in that State, to which
confded, according to all the authorities
the right to construe the constitution o
the State, aud whose decision is bindin,
on all other courts which may have occs
sion to consider the same question, unit
it is reversed or modified by the sam
court. 1t has been followed in that eour
by several other decisions to the sam
point, not yet reported.
1t Is the law administered by all the in
ferior judicial tribunals in the State. VII
are bound by it beyond all question.
apprehend that none Of my brethren VIII
concur in the opinion Just. delivered
would 60 so far as to say that the inferit
State courts would have right to disr,
gard the decision OF their own appellai
couit, and give judgment that the bone
were valid. Such course would be q
useless, as it would be destructive of 4
judicial subordination. wa.
Yet this is. in substance what the m,
majority of the court have decided.
Thay have said to the federal court 81
ting in Iowa. you shall disregard this d
cision OF the highest court of the State q
this question. Although you are sittip
in the State Of Iowa, and adminmteriu
her laws, and constituting her constitutio,
you shall NOT follow the latest, though
be the souDdest exposition of its conss
tuti"u by the supreme coat 81 shat Stat
bat YOU shall decide directly to the col
trary and where that ooast has said til
statute Is unconstitutional, YOU shall 81
that i Y constitutions When il "a,
{. bonds ara roid, issued in that Stsfl. ID
cause they violate its constitution. va
shall say they are valid. because they j
NOT violate the constitution.
Thus ~ are % have two eosr,s s;tt;p
within tie same Jurisdiction. dse;d;n
upon the same rights, arising out Of II
,sanls statute. yet aiwsys arriving at .,
poste results, with no common srbiier
their differences. TheJA 10 no. ,hops
avoiding this, il this court adheres to i
ruling.
For there is 10 this court no power, j
this Glass vi csses, 10 issue its writ of err
tosshs State cours, and thusEo6px { an
formity Of construction, because il is n,
pretepded that either the statuts Of low
or It's constitution, OF the decision Of !,
courts thereon, are il. conflict With 4
Cons&jtafl0n u ths United Stiaej. ST -