Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1876-06-03
IMPORTANT DECISION.
The U. =. Supreme Court PrOnOun-
ces Against the validity eff cer-
tain Bonds Issued UHdc the
IOMA>Lip Aid Act OF 1866.

l The U. =. Supreme Court PronOun.
ces Against II validity "f cer-
tain Bond. Issued U"dcr the
,, TOWNSHIP Aid Act OF 1866.
SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES. :
: No. $50, OCTOBER TERM, 1879. {
G. W. Hartman, plaintiff in error, VS.
Bates county.
n error to the circuit court of the
| !tted States for the western district OF
Missouri.
Mr., Justice Bradley delivered the
opinion of the court.
This is an action brought to recover
the amount due on certain coupons at
tachedto bondso OF Bates county, Missouri.
issued at the request and on account of
Mount Pleasant township, in said county
III payment offs subscription on behalf of
the township to the capital stock of the
Lexington, Lake & Gulf Railroad Com
pany. The subscription was made under
Il law of Missouri, called the township
Aid Act passed in 1868, by which, on
the application oftwenty-five taxpayers
and residents of any township for,.election
purposes i'll any county the county court
may order an election to be held in such
township to determine whether and on
what terms a subscription to any rail
road to be built in or near the township
shall be made; and if two-thirds OF the
qualified voters of the township voting
at such election, are in favor of such
subscription, the county court shall make
it in behalf Of the township, and if bonds
are proposed to pay the subscription, the
court shall issue such bonds in the name
Of the county, but to be provided for by
the township. 1t is commended that this
law is repugnant to the 18th section Of
article IL of the constitution of Missouri,
adopted in 1865, by which it is declared
that 1.-The general assembly shall not
authorize any county, city or town to be-
come a stakeholder in, or to loan its cred
it to. any company, association or cor
poratlon, unless two-thirds of the quail
fled voters of such county city, OF town.
at a regular or special election to be held
therein shall assent thereto"
Now, the law of 1868 only requires the
assent of two-thirds of the qualified vo-
tiers who vote at such election. This is
certainly a broad difference and if the
constitutional restriction extends, by i'm
plication, to townships as we'll as to coun-
ties. cities and towns, an election not
C: morning to the requirements of the
constitution would be invalid and confer
no authority to make a subscription.
The petition in this case only alleges
that two-thirds of the qualified voters
voting ut the election voted in favor of
the subscription which does not satisfy
the demands of the constitution. The
question therefore arises whether town.
ships are within the restriction of the
constitutional provision. A township Is
a different thing from a town in the
organic law OF Missouri, the latter being
an incorporated municipality, the former
only a geographical subdivision of a
county. AS said in the State VS.. Linn
County Court "a Misso., 51O), sit has no |
power by itself to make independent
contracts or to become bound in its sep
arate capacity. The law has not inves- |
ted it with that power. 1t forms an
integral part of the county and the coun-
ty to Il certain extent. controls and acts |
for it," That the trainers Of the %consti-
tuition intended to requir. the assent of
two-thirds of all qualified voters of a
''county, city, or town." as a prerequi-
site to a subscription to a railroado or other
company, and did not intend the same
thing with regard to townships, Sc ms
almost absurd. 1t wa undoubtedly
supposed that every case was provided |
for. The 18th section Of article II de-
clared that the credit of the State should |
not be givenorusedi in aid Interpretations;
section 14th then imposes the restriction
referr d to with regard to Counties, cities
andtowns. This specification embraced
every political organization which could
be supposed capable Of making a sub
scription. TO contend that the mere
subdivision of counties into townships
enabled the legislature to defeat the
constitutional provision is to ignore the
manifest intention and spirit of that in
strumrnt. 1t cannot be possible that it
Was intended to restrict the Legislature
as to counties and not restrict it as to
mere sectional portions %ofcounties. Had
counties alone been mentioned there
might have been no restriction as to cities
and towns, because they are separate, /
distinct organizations corporate in char
acter, and often clothe with Iegis alive
functions. But in Missouri, in 1865,
when the constitution was adopted, a
township had no corporate character, but,
as before Stated, was a mere geographic
cal section OF a county, partitioned off
Tor purposes of local convenience in the
matter of elections and a few other
things. They had no power to act as
corporate bodies. 1t the legislature
could -clothe these geographical portions
OF acounty with power to subscribe to
stock companies at all, it certainly
could not SCI an naught the constitutional
requirements of the peoples consent
thereto.
The court below did not decide the
case on the ground, probably in %conse-
quence OF certain decisions of the state
courts which were deemed inconsistent
with 1t. But we are not aware of any
OF those courts which ho.d that
the constitutional restriction in question
could be ignored with regard to town.
ships any more than with regard to
counties. cities, or towns.
Another objection to the validity ofthe
subscription for which the bonds We're
given in this case is, that the township
voted a subscription t. one company
and the county court subscribed to an
other. This is sought to be justified on
the ground that the former company
consolidated with another, there
by forming a third, to whose stock the
subscription vas made. This CONSOLE t
dation was effected under a law of Mis-
souri, authorizing consolidation and de- +
that the company formed from !
two companies should be entitled to all I
The powers, rights, privileges and i'm
which belong to either; and it t
IS contended that this provision of the !
law justified the county court in making :
The subscription without further author =
ty from the people ofthe township. But y
lid not the authority cease by the eX- =
'lnct:on Of the company voted for? No q
subscription had been made. Nc vested i
lights had accrued to the company. The
case OF the state vs.. Linn county court Il
IA Mo. 304). decides that if the county h
court refuses to issue bonds after making t.
| subscription, q mandamus will lie to \
S them. There the authority had 5
been executed and Il right had become f
rested. But SO long as it remains .un-
executed, the occurrence of any event
which creates a revocation in law will
'xtinguish the power. The extinction
IT the company in whose favor the sub =
crlption was authorized worked such a l.
evocation. The law authorizing the n
Consolidation OF railroad com panies does \
lot change the law of attorney and con- i.
tituent. 1t may transfer the vested rights l.
# M railroad company to another upon IL
consolidation being effected; but it Il
loes not continue in existence powers to II
for stock given by one person a
o another, which, by the general Ia w.