, 1874-05-20
JUDGE BLOUGETTS DECISION on THE RAIL-
ROAD-A1D BONDS.

It will be remembered that tho Supreme Court
Of thus stato at it's last session held at Ottawa,
decided that the iBsnc Of bonda, amounting in
tho aggregate to upwards Of s400,000, executed
By various towns aud citios In payment Of stock
In the Ottawa, Oswego & Fox River Wiley Rail-
rond Company, WAS Invalid upon the ground Tint
the law utlder which tho bonda wore Issued had
never paeHed the Legislature in tho manner pre-
soribcd by tho Constitution Of this State. Accord
ing to that decision municipality, whon sued
upon ita honda, is permitted to 60 behind the
published statutes, and, notwithstanding an
act Of tho Legislature la found In
tho oflco Of tho Secretary Of State.
duly enrolled and signed by the sronkera of
both Hounos, approved and signed by tho Govern
Or, and incorporated among the published laws
of tho stato; defeat recovery by showing tint
tho Legislature failed to obsorvo somo constitu-
tional requirement in relation to tho manner Of
conduotingits business during tho passagoof the
bill. Tho efroct OF thla dooislon naturally enough
was to creato widespread CONSERVATION among
Eastern holders Of illinois municipal bonds.
Tho First National Bank Of Winohendon,
Mass holding some Of tho bonds issued By tho
Town Of Aurora In payment OF stock in the
Ottawa, Oswego l. Fox River Valley nailroad
Company, brought an action In the Circuit Court
Of the United statos for the Northern District
of Illinois, and the defense interposed was that
the Journals Of tho Senate failed to show that
tho aot under which tho bonds wero Issued
had passed q third reading by aycH
and noea, "a required By tho Constitution, and
so hnd never become Law. Tho case waa tried
before Judge Dlodgott, without jury, in rob-
ruary lust, and waa elaborate1y argued by
Mossrs. Wilson l. Perry, Of this city, for tho
plaintiff, and by Wheaton, canttold & Smith, Of
Aurora, for the town, Judge Dlodgett an
nounced Ills opinion Monday in favor Of tho
validity OF tho bonds, holding that whore a
municipality has gone On aud acted under
statute which has been duly published by legis-
latiyo authority among tho printed laws OF the
Stato, and haa treated 1t as valid law by the
issuing Of bonds which hare Subsequently come
into tho hands Of innocent purchasers for Value
tho municipality is cstopped from asserting that
tho law haa not boon dul5 passed.
This opinion is tho moro important inasn1uch
AZ 1t is understood TINT there are several other
statutes authorizing the issue Of bonds which
ara opnn to nttacR II such limo Of defense
should bo permitted. It Ia direct issue with
tho Supreme Court OF tho State. Upon the gen.
eral question Of allowing tile judicial dopart-
ment to 60 behind tue publlBhed lava and in
quiro into the regularity Of legislative proceed
inga for tho purpose Of invalldating public
statute, the adjudications OF tho courts OF diff
! ferent States arc not uniform. Tho Supreme
Court Of tho United Staten has not, 80
far aB We arc aware passed. upon
the question, but the principle inyolv"
cd is one Of paramount Importance. The
constitutionality Of law, US to ita subject mat
tor, is always Within the sphere Of judicial In
quiry, hut worry different olemont Ia brought
| into the case when the Court, under tho plea o1
constitutional limitation, Is asked to Invade the
domain Of Legislative action by going behind tic
published laws, and inquiring whether tue vari
oua steps which tho Constitution directs ths
law-makiug body to obsorvo havo or havo mo-
been taken during tho pnsaage Of bill through
the two HOUSES of tho General Assembly. Thl
ilnnl Adjudication OF this question by tho Su
promo Court Of tho United Statoe, whore it vii
probably be carried, will be looked for with con
siderable Interest,"