The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1870-04-21

But waving this objection, let MS inquir.
whether any such authority was ever attempt
! ed 10 be given by the Legislature. I'VE can
| find no such authority. ~ A2t tt42"
Several acts of the Legislature were intro
duced under the pretencc of showing that
| this scrip and indebtedness bad been SO ratl-
| tied by the Legislature, but We are wholly I'M
able to discover any bearing they have on the
question but as they have been given in ey-
idence, we propose briefly to refer to them.
The first of these Acts is the one alre sdy So
much considered, the .Act authorizing the City OF
Kenosha toad in the construction Of The Kenosha
and Beloit Railroad approved March 22d. 1888.
We have already shown that this Act had nothing
whatever to DO with this scrip,and as IL was passed
and fulfilled its mission some three years before the
! FIRST issue of this scrip we may safely calculate
that it was not intended as ratidcation thereof.
The next Actof the Legislature relied upon rs
entitled an Act to provide for the election Of a
Railroad Commissioner in the ity Of Kenosha APP
proved Oct. I'd 1855 Record Pr. ISIS
/ There were also introduced III evidence section
i Q and chapter ~. or An Act 60 consolidate aud
amend the Act TO incorporate the CITY OF Kehosha.
ana theseyeral acts Smendatory thereof Record,pp.
/ 258-9. 81 3. 9.sit Z . 9'. ~
SAID sect IN relates I'd the corporate powers OF
the city, and chapter II of the same Act reehacts
the'fornler provisions relative toa Railroad Com
mis- soner W til some notifications These are
the on y Acts of the Legis iature introduced on
the trial relied upon to establish a ratification.
1t win not }e. pretended that they directly or in
terms fifty this Subscription OF ock, or che Issue
/ OF thia scrip, and we arc therefore to- Consider
whether they do it BY implication or whether it is
not an inter perversion Of theirtfue scope and OBJ
Iect to give them any such construction. II there
was !, legitimate object for which Railroad Com
missioner could be elected IN the City OF kenosha
! aside from this subscription and scrip, then GER
tainy law providing tor the officer ava The cleo
/ tion OF such officer should not be construed a. u
4 ra ifcation of another TRANSACTION wholly unwary
ranted aid void @ If there was legal and proper
4 object for which such officer could be provided.
/ we are bound tupresume that it was to subser> G
That object, and not to ratiiy anitilegtimaEe one
that such office was created II Sncn case no i'm
The record shows that the City Of. Xeno~h ac-
qhired legal and proper Interest to the extent OF
$50 90, in that railroad in 1888. rhat the City
subsequently issued ifs scrip in payment of the
Interest on said bonds issued for that intent and
other purposes to the extent of over $S0,oO0 AL
ofwhich was outstanding at the time OF the crea
ton this Office of Railroad mnllssiQner, and
all of which tie railroad company had agreed 10
pay-having been issued by way'o loan. Record,
tpp 264 and $50. 40 g "a 7lN tts ~ y
We therefore and that an the duties o; this Rail
no commissioner We're properly applicable to
the legitimate interests aud indebtedne ness Of the
city, ana hence no reasonable presumption or inn
Ipitaton can arise that 1t wast'S htention of the
Legislature IL creating that . lfc IT of the city in
electng him to ratfy or legitimatize any sesip or
other transaction Of the City Council, which was
| the1inlegal and void. 49, s 81 sa s.at
But we may welrinqnire, is Ii compel emf for the
Iegisatufeto ralify and confirm bond or piece
| OF scrip which is utterly void? Surprising III
haiore Tod in 6sa wona coo
N7taopt any action or consent on the part OF the
contracting parties make valid and binding what
Was before void? Such is not the doctrine IN Wis
consin Hasbruuck vs.. Milwaukee. IL Wis, 81.
| BUT the Legislature have taken no such action
directly or in iirectly end neither has the city.
In order co ratify, the court must dnd that 1t
the intention of the Legislature to give the author
iy3and then that the city acting upon that author
ity inteuded 10 ratfy the issue of this scrip. Is
/ there any such proof?' Can this Court find such
Intentions? The preIence thatevery vet passed by
the Legislature in relation to the City of Kenosha
or even in relation to- the railroad, is to be con-
strued as q grant OF power TO the defendant to
ratfy this illegal scrip or as an actual ratification
! O. it is simply ridiculous. Or that sucl ratidca-
| ton could beaccomplishedw without any Act OF the
/ city for that purpose.is nlonstrous. 49,
! There is atotai want ofelegislatiye action the
subject of ratication and equal want of Coop.
Grafton on the part of the defendant. It's there
fore useless to pretend tina this scrip has ever
beensratided either by the Legislature or the City
I our defence to this action is not an attempt TO
show that q valid power or authority granted sby
/ the Legislature to the City of Kenosha has been
J effectively or improperly executed, but on the
contrary we have demonstrated in the language
of this Supreme Court of the United States in Mer-
Ger County Va. Hackett, 'sthat no law existed to
authorize" the making ofthis subscription or the
issue OF this scrip. IS etsastgI . !
! we therefore insist, that there was no authority
or power in the city council to make the bscrip
ton to this stock to Issue the orders or scrip
of the city in payment thereof, or in aid of said
IKenosha d Beloit Railroad Company, and that
the several changes of the scrip which were mad
have not changed its character or effect that it
was entirely void in its inception, ann so remains
in its changed character; and that the plaintiff
was not bona tide innocent holder thereof, mas
much as the scrip on its face states its character;
and there WAS no law. which, under any circum-
stances, authorized said city to issue said scrip,
The plaintiff was therefore bound to take notice
that the same WAS unauthorized and void, and the
judgment of the Court below should be reversed.
T. ~ JOHN W. CARY
Counsel for oPsaiatiF an Error