Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1870-02-17

EU. ps7r 'Gsg i NU.3 oO
so regarded, from the fact that no
such head-note or syllabus has ever
been set in any case decided by this
court. Some Of the cases use the
language that under our constitution
and laws, Counties and cities do not
possess the power to subscribe stock,
&c. But this is very different from,
saying that under the constitution
the legislature has no authority to
pass law giving the power. There
can be no doubt, either upon princi-
pie or authority, that Counties, cities
or towns may not subscribe stock to
a railroad, except they are author
lied SO to do by legislative enact
ment. Nor can there be the least
possible doubt, in view of the legis-
lative history on that subject, that
no such authority has ever been
given by our legislature, until the
act now in question. Upon these
two propositions, the late decisions
of this court upon County and city
railroad bonds, are rested, and there
on are abundantly supported by the
authorities. of
In every decision in this court de-
nying the validity Of County bonds,
it has been held that the Legislature
had not passed any ld,o authorizing
their issue. If'no such law had been
passed, why discuss the constitution
al authority Of the legislature to pass
one? For whether the authority
existed or not was immaterial, since
the legislature had not attempted to
exercise it. How, i'm view of these
facts, our learned Chief Justice can
say that "this court has held just
such a law invalid" is beyond my
comprehension. Upon any princi-
pie of Interpretation ofjudicial opin-
ions, there can be no escape from
the conclusion that the question of
the constitutional 7,oacer Of the Legis-
ldt,we to clothe the Counties, cities
or towns with authority to take stock
in railroad corporations, or levy n
tax in aid thereof, has never been
decided by this court.
THIRD. No clause Of the Consti-
tuition of our State is cited or relied
upon as denying to the Legislature
tllsexpeMn 4essas - y asathnrity u
yof7Icr the power upon Counties,
cities or towns to subscribe stock in,
or aid by taxation the construction
OF railroads. Nor do the foregoing
opinions rest upon or claim that
there is any such clause; they go
upon the theory that the right of
private property is paramount to all
legislative authority, and the two
clauses Of the constitution referred
to, are quo.ed to strengthen the
rather than as a basis upon
which to rest the conclusion.
These two clauses aresubstantially,
and almost literally, in every State
Constitution in the Union; and the
question Of the power Of the legisla-
lures under the State Constitutions
to confer such authority upon Coun-
ties, cities and towns has been before
the Supreme Courts of at least tcea-
tyrone other States, and in ere,y in
stance tie legisiatire 11oace7' has been
affirmed. See, among others, the
following cases, viz: FL
Sharpless V. The Mayor &C., Dist
Penn, st. Rep. 147. gs7.
Commonwealth V. Perkins, 43d
Penn, st. Rep. 40.
The People ex rel v. Mitchell, 35
New York, Rep. $50. ia a.s
Clark V. City of Rochester, % New
York, Rep. G05. E
Gould v. The town of Venice, -
Barb IN. W 442. d pa'
Slack v. The City Of Maysville, IL
Ben. Mon, tKy.) l.
Maddox v. Graham, 2 Metcalf
lKy.) 80. aa4
Nicoll V. Mayor &C., 8 Humphrey,
(Tenn.) 252. ae3 aaaa,aa
Goddin V. Crump, s Leigh, (Va.l
12O. ss8eG
City of Bridgeport v. Housatonic
II. II. G., Is Conn.,, 475. ~
Society for Savings v. New Lon
don, 90 Conn.,, ia. ''' !. e
Cincinnati II. II. Co. v. Commits
&C., Ohio st. Rep, II.
State DC, y. Commissioners, y
Ohio st. Rep, SAG. ,sp .it.7s ID