The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1876-01-26
HE state vs.. The VickSbmrs. and
Nashville H. e. Co
Opinion of the Court bg SIMRALL. J.

Op"l0n OF the Court by SMRALL, j.
By act of Congress, approved July ?. 1862
there was granted to the several States an
amount of public Iands apDortioned to each
State according to its representation in Con-
gress.
Section of the act provides that the pro-
ceeds of these lands ''shall be invested in
stocks of the United States, or of the States
or some other safe stocks yielding not less
than five per centum on the pdr value of
said stocks; and that the moneys so invest
ed shall constitute perpetual fund, the
canital of which shall remain forever undi-
miniShed =, and the interest of which
shall be inviolably appropriated to the en-
dowment, support and maintenance of at
least one college, where the leading object
shall be =, without excluding other
studies, 10 teach such branches of
learning as are related to agriculture and
the mechanic arts, in such manner rs the
States may respectively prescribe
This grant was accepted by the State of
Mississippi by act of the Legislature in
1866.
In the first instance, this fund was invest
ed in State bonds, and the annual interest
was paid over to the State Universities
AfterWard, by act of April, Is 1873 the
fund was loaned to the Y. & n. L. r. Co,
for the construction OF its road, the security
prescribed being the bonds of the company,
bearing per cent interest payable semi
annually, maturing in ten years, secured by
HFSb mortgage DDnuS OF the company. The
interest to be paid over to the Universities.
The Attorney General, in behalf of the
State, filed a bill to restrain the Treasurer
from delivering the fund to the railroad
company. The Injunction was dissolved
on motion, and from this decree this appeal
was taken. Held;
|. While the State is under moral Obliga-
ton In administering this fund to conform
to conditions contained in the act of Con
gress. vet as it is under a duty to replace this
ffIr I'd inf I.ao ~ i lost hy- bod
ment, it is clear that the State must have
the power 10 select the investments this
discretion was intended to be conferred by
the terms of the grant.
IL. The act of Congress merely requires
that the Tund shall be kept invested 40 as
continually to be earning interest, and it is
competent for the State TO change the form
of the investment. For example, the State
lands in which the fund was first placed
were to mature in three or four years, and
REIMBURSEMENT became necessary.
III. The iaw-makIng department of the
State governments alone com petent to exc
cute this trust, and it rested with it alone t0
| determine what stocks were safe, and its de
eision of this question is conclusive.
/ ~ The rules upon which court OF
equity deals with an ordinary trustee can
not be applied to case where a sovereign
state Is trustee Decree affirmed.
TARBELL, J., dissented, on the ffollO,oii,.S
grounds:
That the act of April 18th. 1873, investing
! this fund in bonds of an insolvent railroad
| company, was in violation of the act of Con.
gress, requiring the investment to be in
" stock OF the United States, or of the States
or some other safe stocks" that the State il
a trustee of the fund and as such. liable t.
the jurisdiction of a court of Chancery. Al
| the State only acts through agencies o
which the Legislature one and the Treas
urer another, in violating the positive te rms
OF the grant, . the Legislature can be con-
trolied by the courts operating upon legis.
| lative agencies"
The State controls this fund in 'sher adatci-
airy and not in her political character
over such control the courts of equity
| have the same jurisdiction as over any othe
trustee" In conclusion, it is said that the
| decree dissolving the injunction should b,
reversed, and the injunction restored.