Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1866-02-15
Mis- c. IL a II Y j.
IOWA COUNTY RAIL
ROAD BONDS.
Supreme Court Of the United States
December Term, 1865.

crit eoprt ef tie United Ssqse< os he district # US
coasin.
ar. Justice swayne delivered the opinion Of the
court.
The care into this cont from the circuit court
Of the United States for the district Of Wisconsin up
on certificate that the judges Of that court op
posed in opinion upon the following qu stion.
/. Whether the said act Of the legislature Of The
state Of Wisconsin, entitled An act authorize tie
counties and towns through which the Mineral Point
railroad passes to aid its construction, approved
March 49, 1858, under which these bonds aye issued
is general law, within the meaning Of section Il +,
of article T. Of the constitution Of the state CT Wis
consin.
2 Whether the satd act not being published as a
general act and having been first published after its
passage in the volume Of local and private acts on the
fourth day of October 1885, and after the issuing d
the bonds, is not such exercise Of power by the
state government legislature showing that the act
is not Il general act, is binding Oh the coats
g. Whether, if the said act is such general law
any act omission Of The said county, its officers or
electors short Of election under the act pub
Iished IN October 1853, will render the bonds valid,
or stop the defendant from questioning the validity
in the hands Of a Jona fde holder.
In the view which we have taken Of the first two
questions they may be properly considered together
Article !, section 81, If tie constitution Of Wscon-
SIM prov fdes that no general law shall be in rec
until published"
The 1871 scctiez -Df the act of 1852, makes it The
duty of the secretary Of state and the attorney gene
raj 10 divide all the laws passed by the legislature in
to two clas8cs and direct that each css shall bepui
Iished in a separate volume that the first shall in
,Iude laws of geae,4d aotare; the second class, ali
laws which are not included in the first class; and
nat .thc title pages Of the respective volumes shall
express Whether they contain acts Of general ma
ture or the private ANA local acts" etc.
The statute upon which the questions here under
consideration arise passed subsequently, to the
taking effect of this act.
The secretary Of state and the attorney general
decided that it was not general law but local act,
and it was classified dinghy, but the volume
tanning it published until after the action Of
the voters which authorized, had been taken, and
the bonds had been issued.
The decision as to tie character of the act,
made by those upon whom the law dcyoyed that du
ty Its not claimed that it WAC not fairly made, nor
is it seasoa it liz accordance with the rule
VIII ich had prevailed down to that time, and which
pTeYalle1 ullll CIu pdScEu
upon the subject in the Of the state against Lee
on which was decided in the year 1859.
This action is conclusive TO the executive de-
partment Of the government prior to that period,
aud it is entitled greater weight from the fact that
the highest law officer Of the state participated in the
dec sion.
The subject came Acknowledgements the consider
alton of the supreme court Of the state, in Hcwett
vs. the town of Grand Chute7 Wisconsin, 2S2. The
question in shat was whethsr statute, in all
spects Identical with tie one under which these
curies were issued, regards the question before
us, was pleaded as a private act should be. The
question whether il ,ros priraie act was not made
in the case. That implicitly conceded Ivy the
counsel ON both sides. Tie court say:
The Of action is founded prico'e stat'rte
or rather upon certain Instruments or contracts in
writing which derive their validity from such lrirate
statute. BY the common law it necessary to set
out such statute in the declaration, otherwise.the
c9urt would not take notice of its provisions: unite
in this respect public statute Of which the court
was bound 10 take judicial notice though the latter
were not pl,adcd But section CO of ths code Of pro-
cedure provides as follows In pleading private
statute or a rigat derived .here,om it shall be suf-
its passage and the court shall thereupon take u
dicial notice thereof In tliis the plaintiI in
his complaint did refer to the statute ON which his
right derived by reference to it. tilc and the day
of its passage and he thus brought the whole statute
within the judiaial know lodge of tie court, etc.
Here was a clear Judicial reccguiion by The high
est court of the state in accordance wththe previous
determination Of the executive department. The
ecutive and judicial departments were in harmony
upon the subject. The decided in 1888. 1t
shows the understanding ed the bar and the bench
mp to that time.
Prior 20 that period no intimation had been given
10y any department of the government that statutes
were to be regarded otherwise than local in their
character 4ad broadly distinguished from general
laws within the meaning Of the constitution.
The subsequent adjudcations in the state V. Leon,
9 Wisconsin 279, decided in 1859, and the which
fo ilowe il, hold that such statues are "of general
naturc'' AMI have validity until published. Bat
being long poster ior 10 Tie time when the securities
were issued they can havo eoct upon cur decision
and may be laid ont f view.
The bonds bear date on the twenty-sixth day of
July. 1858.
We can look only to the condition ofthings which
subsisted when they sold. That brings them
within the rule laid an By ehis court, in Gclrcke
VS. the city of DabuQue, Wallace, la
In that case it was held that fhe contract, when
made - valid by the constitution and laws of the
state as then expounod by highest authorities whose
Iuiy administer then, no subsequent action
hy the legislature judiciary impair its obliga
ton This rule was established uponthe most careful
cons .aeratjn W. think it rests upon solid fonn-
ation and we feel no disposition TO depart from it,
Whether the statute here under consideration is
general local in It's characters ques
ton which have ot und necessary to consider
The third question presents merely an abstract
proposition. NJ facts are disclosed in the record
which show that it has arisen can hereafter aiise
N the case. Under such circumstances il is the sctt
ed plactice Of this court to decline answer II is
necessary that the questi, should involve distinct
ccal point, and that -nfic Ont facts should be set
orth 10 show lis bearing upon the rights of the
PARTIES
Crocker ct al ". Newton = How, isl.
United States Is The city Bank Of Columbus, 10
low. $50.
In th.s case All the Facts relied upon operating
o r.tit should have leen set foftA. Any point of
disagreement between the judges relating to The sub
Get woula then aave appeared in il proper light and
ould have been definitely answered As he quts-
ion is presented, the aaswey, if eircn, would lie
qualy gen,rAl ana, like the question a mere ab-
traction, which could subserye uscfa purpose in
he further progress ofthe c%use.
The answers to The iirs, and second questions
ifel up viii be-that .sg.Ir the circumstances tie
tatu;e ref rred to must be held in this casc to be
ocal and no; general lor.
To the third question, for the reasons stated, no
'nsygcr viii he given.
An order win lee RENTED 10 the district court in