Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1878-05-11

other than q municipal or quasi corpor alton is
deny tina, such power existed either under the
constitutions of lS20 or 1857
" hiie we conceie that 1t has been established
by the courts that railways are such public i'm
proveInents rs would authorize a delegation of
the taxing power TO municipal corporations. We
do not cOncede that this principle has been so
far extended As to justify . delegation oil 1t to u
township, q mere geographical subdivision OF a
county, and in no sense . corporation. If SO,
may pot 3 majority Of the citizens of u congress
sionnl township. which is n legal subdivision oil
= county. embracing thirty-six sections of land.
or the citizens of y section Of GO acres. or n
subscribe stock 10 . railway, issue bon,is and
levy q tax on such township. section or quarter
section.
While we admit that the state, in the exercise
OF the right of eminent domain, may impose
taxes and delegate through it's legislature the
taxing power to its local municipal authorities,
for local improvements, and to le controlled py
such authorities, We are unwilling to give ii a
wider scope than we think the a~djudged cases
allow, and extend its operation to mere terrific
rial divisions of IA county, the logical results of
which " Ould be as above indicated. 1t 10 claim
ed that. since the adoption of the constitution of
1858. this court, In the Linn county case, mira,
and the case of state to the use of Neal VS.. Saline
County Court. has determined otherwise.
We think an examination OF tine GASES Will
show that the point WAS not in either of them.
In the last case the only question was whether
An innocent purchaser of u bond which recited
on its face that il had been issued under and in
pursuance of an act OF the legislature would be
protected by such recital, although in truth and
TACT the county court In issuing tn. bond had
not pursued the suthority conferred. Tue power
of the legislature to confer the authority was not
brought IN question. In the Linn county cuse
the point wis male that the bonds. for the issu-
ance OF which the proceeding was instituted.
would be, II issued. the bonds of the county,
and not OF tile township. and therefore obpoxs
ious to section IA of the constitution; and the
question OF power was not rhiGed, 1t Is insisted
that this court kY ia Iurmer aajudicaiions is
preclndsd from u consideration of the validity
Of the act OF 1868. and the doctrine OF stare de-
cisis has been invoked ana pressed upon our
attention. IT the eonstitutionality Of this act
had been heretofore fully presented and consld-
cred and declared valid, thereby establishing a
rule of property, We would hesitate long before
overturning or upsettIng it in any degree, We
think this has not been done. and the case on
which the Claim is based Is that OF the State ex
rel; Va. Linn county court. ~ Mo. 5o4. in
which the points now before us were neither
made nor considered; and all that it DECIDED was
that . bond Issued un.ier the terms Of the act
would not in any sense be Il county, but to all
intents and puIpO-es. IA township bond.
The question before US was neither made nor
considered in that or any other case. and this is
copoeded By the court in the case Of Cass county
W. Joinson. recently decided Ivy The supreme
court OF the United States. in which it is said
that lit 10 true that the objection now made to
the law was IN NO case presented OF considered"