The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1877-04-14
THE BOND DECISION.

States in the case OF Perkins vs.. The Town OF
South Ottawa, involving the validity Of all
the bonds voted in aid OF the Ottawa Oswe
90 and Fox River Valley Railroad The
opinion was delivered by Judge Bradley
The first Of these actions was brought by
Perkins, the plaintiff below, to recover the
amount due upon two negotiable bonds OF the
town of South Ottawa in the usual form, for
81 900 each, made payable to the Ottawa, Os
wego and Fox River Valley Railroad compa
ny, or bearer, in three years from July |, 1869
with coupons for the semiannual payment OF
interest attached. Tney contain reci!aIs as
follows
"This bond is one of series of twenty
bonds bearing even date herewith each fol
the sum of 81 $50, Il * and is issued 10
pursuance of an election held in said town
on the Sth day Of October, 1866, under and by
virtue of a certain act of the legislature of the
state of Illinois, approved Feb. IS, 1857, en-
TITLED, AN act authorizing certain cities
counties, Incorporated towns and townships
to subscribe TO the stock of certain railroads,
at which election majority Of the
legal voters participating in the same voted
I for subscription 10 the capital stock of said
railroad in the sum OF $4,000, and to issue
the bonds of said town therefor; and the said
i election was by the proper authorities duly
declared carried foi subscription, previous
application having been made to the town
clerk of the town, ana said clerk having call.
ed said election in accordance herewith, and
having given due notice Of the time and place
of holding the same as required by law and
the act Aforesaid
The second action was brought on a bond
issued by the county. OF Kendall in Illinois,
bearing date the 4tl day of May 1869, In aid
of the same railroad, and by virtue Of the
same act of the Legislature, and containing
substantially the same recital, matatiS mHtan
dis, as those in the Ottawa bonds, except that
the election authorizing the issue OF the
bonds is stated 10 have been held on the 30th
day Of March, 1869. The facts in the two
cases are, IN other respects, substantially the
same. The only authority claimed for issu-
! ing these bonds Is the act referred to in the
above recital therein. If no such act was
ever passed by the Legislature of Illinois the
bonds arc VOID. A municipal corporation
cannot issue bonds in ala OF extraneous OBJ
! jects without legislative authority, of which
| all persons dealing with such bonds must
take notice at their peril. Pendleton Co. vs.
Amy, 10 Wall, 1874; Kennlcott VS.. Superb
sors, 10 Wall, 4g5; st. Joseph VS. Rogers, 1G
Wall, Go; Coloma 7. vs. Eaycs, 90 L. s.,
4S4.)
1t Is insisted on the part of the plaintiffs in
error in these cases, that the law relied on for
authority to issue the bonds in question was
never passed, no entry of It's passage appear
| ing on the Journal Of the senate OF Illinois
| The constitution of Illinois, adopted in
| 1913, contains the following provisions:
cart III, sec I. The legislative authority
| of the state shall he vested in general as.
sembly, which shall consist of a senate and
house representatives, both to be elected Ivy
the people
Sec g. Each house shall keep Journal of
| its proceedings, and publish them. ~
! "Sec. 81. " On the final passage of
all bills, the vote shall be- by ayes and noes,
and shall be entered on the journal; and no
bill shall become law without the concur-
renee OF u majority of the members elect in
each house"
The construction also provides that all bills
passed shall be signed by the speakers Of the
two houses, and approved and signed by the
governor, or, IN case of his refusal, shall be
repassed by majority elected to each house,
The general laws of the state provide tor de-
posting all acts of the legislature, and the
original journals of the two houses, in the
office of the secretary of state, who is charged
with having them printed, and the printed
statute books are made evidence of the acts
contained therein.
In the constitution of the constitutional
provisions above recited, the supreme court
Of Illinois, by long course of decisions, has
held that IT is necessary to the validity of a
statute that ii should appear by the legisla.
tive journals that 1t was duly PASSED In the
manner required by the constitution.
As early as 1858, 1t was decided, IN Span
gler vs.. Jacoby, IA ILL.,, 209 that 1t was "com
tn hot ha 10 IF nj hor
branch of the legislature, that particular
act was not passed in the mode prescribed by
the constitution, and thus defeat its operation
altogether The constitution requires each
house to keep Journal and declares that
certain facts, made essential TO the passage of
q law, shall be stated therein. If those facts
are not set forth, the conclusion is that they
did not traHspire. The journal is made up
under the immediate direction of the house,
and is presumed 10 contain u full and com.
plete history of its proceedings. If certain
act received the constitutional assent of the
body,it will so appear on the face of Its journal.
And when a contest arises AS to whether the
act was passed. the journal may be appealed
TO TO settle IL. 1t is the evidence of the action
of the house, and by it the act must stand or
fall. 1t certainly was not the intention of the
trainers OF the constitution that the signatures
ulsh evidence conclusive of the passage of
law. The presumption, indeed, is, that an
act thus verified became the law pursuant to
the requirements Of the constitution, but that
presumption may be overthrown. Ii the
journal is lost or destroyed the presump tion
will sustain the law, for it will be intended
that the proper entry was made on the jour
nal. But when the journal Is in existence,
and it fails TO show that the act was passed IN
the mode prescribed by the constitution, the
presumption is overcome and the act must
fall"
This case was followed, IN 1855, by Turley
VS.. County of Logan, II ILL.,, l5l. There, a
law was supposed 10 have been passed at the
session of the legislature IN 1863 for the re.
moval of the seat of justice of Logan county,
by vote OF the people. In the fall after a
vote was taken, which resulted in favor of
the removal. Turley and his associates then
filed their bill 10 restrain the county officers
from erecting county buildings nj the new 10.
20, an tho urnunl I'm, annparpl nv