Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1877-12-01
OASS COUNTY BONDS.
Justice BradIey's Dissenting
Opinion.

WAsHIsCToS. Nov. 2.-The opinion of IN.
Chef Justice and n majority of the Bench. IN tn,
lI-hed in the Globe Democrat. The following i.
the dissenting opinion of Justice Bradley
The County OF tass plaintiff IN error. Us. vii.
liam A. johnson In error 10 the Circuit Cour
Of The United States for the Western District q
Missouri. Mr. Justice Il, ailey discerning.
feel obliged 10 adhere TO IN" opinion gwen ir
li~srshnsn vs.. Is iirs county. 9: L. S, 6o9 4
tn. Iis."uri convention which framed the con.
s'ItutI,n OF led5 desired to prevent municips
subscriptions to railroad and other ent.rprisei
except hy the consent Of "A majority ofth- jeopi,
qualified ia vote In the di-trict TO be Affected, / &c
not s-e what language could have been adopt {
mere apt for he purpose thsn that which 10 actu.
ally used in tn fourteenth section of Article NJ
The General Assembly shall nat authorize an,
county, c',v or town to become u stool holher IN,
or to loan its credit TO any company, sssoclstior
or corporation. sni".stwO-thlrtis OF the uusiihcC
v"ter- OF such county. CITY or town, al y regular
or special election TO be helt therein shall aosrnr
;herrto.' The literal meaning OF this clause
seems to INC unnl-rak.bIv to require two
In frta OF the qualified voters shetner they vote
! or not The language IL just ~ strong as III 4 al
The 'wenfy fourth - ction OF article four, whict
I drrla e. tha' mo bin shall BE- Passed uplrs- b,
the .s-' NJ OF a majority of all the member.
c.. ct-h 10 ca h branch ofthe General As-emnl, >
Tn. clal-e has always heen construed to NEAR
that M " can be pRssel unless q majority OF
the members vote Tor it, whether all are presenj
or not. And the rrason 0! the requirement In
the i'Tncr CASE "a A. sironE As Ia .he tier Tn,
| people wh" Az 10 pay the tA1ss for raising Q sub
scllptton to II railroa'i ought not to be suhircte,
10 that burden. unie-s The requisite majority OF
tive class named. that IS. the qualified voters
can be induced 70 give their assen, TO 1t. Ir
the one case. IA in tho other. absence and iaiIur,
to ra'e il equivalent to a dissent. I concrd,
TINT II ID" supreme 1urt NJ Missouri hs- given
contrary construction 10 the clsu-e. which ha,
become the settled law of the SAFE. we should b.
guv-rped by II. But I do not understand thn,
ms h IS been done. In the c.se o: the State vs..
WiDk'lmsn tas No lU3). which was decid.,ij JUS
before the sdOpt;On of the Constitution, tn
question arose upon the act OF 1887, which de.
ciared that THE corporate authorities OF the dir.
Irrent cities in the county Of 81. Louis shall have
the power, whenever . majority OF the leYxl
votes of the respective cities 10 SAID county uu,
thorlEe ttem 10 do so. to grant permission Tor ths
opening OF any establishment within the cog.
poralr liulitS CT said cities for the safe of refresh,
lnents on any day IN the week" Al an cleo
tIou in ST. Louis, !. 900 persona voted in favor
OF giving to the city authority to grant permits
sion to op"n establishments for the sale of re
treatments on SUNDAY. AMI J 600 voted sgsin-t
Il. The court held that in order to confer IN.
requisite authority under the act, II requir, 1
n majority OF the legal voters, that l.. o
all the legal voters OF the city, and mol merely
OF all those VIII" might. at = particular tim,
the sxur.,s Language of the court; and KS. y
that election more than Is ool voters psrtici
pst-t in voting for The oficsrs to be elected, !
selves, without looking further. that . majority
OF the legal voters of the city had not voted 10:
the authority And hence, It We. decided. tina
court would have come 10 the same conclusion
had it u-en shown III any other way that lest
than u majority OF tuc ipRal NOlefb SOIeu Tor The
authority. The mode OF ascertaining tie Who'll.
naIuGer OF legal voters WAS not prescribed by
the Law In that case II sufficiently apuenre,
from the election returns theIGarives. TEPre IL
no valid reason why the same conclusion shoul,
not be de iuced from a registry Of the l-ga'
voters. The objection that some prrsons no
entitled to vote may be registered has no fore,
TO nv mind. II any one chooses Ia rsise ths is
.ua 1t might lie open for him To do SO. Blu
The registry wouii certainly furnish prima fsci,
evidence OF the nUmhsr of legal OF ,.usiifel
voters
knsr the constitution WAS sdnpted 4 cssi
urose on that clause Of the constitution which
declares Art ", sec. 3nl THAT the Genera
Assembly shall have no power 10 remove tn,
county -rat OF any county. unless two thirds OF
me .IualIfI.d yotprS of the county, at q genera
election, shall vote in favor OF such removal ;
tbs was the case at the state Va. Sutterfsid rs
No, igll, and the court. IN an elaborate argu
unent. again held that these terms required
uositivr vote IN the Affirmative, OF the euslIfe,
voter Of tho county,; and the court expressly
saws: There ~ no difficulty in a-cer,sluin:
what that number IL, since the ssme constitu.
ton provides for a registration, aud points on
who the qualified voters are
In the cases relied on by the defendant II
error, the prcrise question now under c. nsidrr.
a:Iop wss no, prosecuted 10 the supreme court 81
Missouri. Jhev mostly ralsted I" forrns Of phrase
oIoxy different truin thst under Consideration
and ure distingui-hable therefrom In srvern
uariicuiars which 1t Ia unnecessary now TO e1.
anime. The leading oa.s. OF Linn county. VA,
cursorily examined ID Hsr-hnltp Ts Rates coun.
". But not desiring 20 pr"ionG this opinion,
by enterirg into Il critical eHarnlnstion OF thoss
cssss. I will simply remark that the weight Of
authority in Missouri, taking all the cases to
xetner. is, in my judgment. on the side OF the
fn,,rprets,iop which I still feel constrained &c
give lib" constitutional clause In question.
} Nj. Justice Muller eopcurs IN this dissent,