The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1878-08-15

meuts. either on land or water. In any pat
of the State, with their own capital, @ lhrr
in hand or such rs they may obtain by
opening books Of subscription for the pur-
pose OF increasing their capital, Secondly,
that the Legislature be also authorized 10
provide that the state NAV, NJ It's diScrc-
ton. subscribe for some definite number
Of shares with said company 0I companies.
And thirdly, that a provision he lncOrpO-
rAtcd IN the Constitution that State and
county Internal Improvements by land and
water shall forever be- encouraged by the
govern. ncnt Of this state
Here were three suggestions, the first
two OF which were ignored, but the sub
stance Of the other was adopted, rs viii be
seen by reference to Article II, section .,
before quoted. Now, what Is the cXpla-
nation Of this action Of the Convention !
The proceedings throw no light ON this
point. and hence we are lett to conjecture,
As to the first suggestion OF the commit
tcr-lhat the Legislature be authorized 10
charter companies to operate with their
own capital, which NJ. Blount had de-
! clarcl to be amply sufficient to accomplish
the purposes in vicW-nO doubt the Con-
vculion thought that this was comprc-
hcudcd in the general powers OF govern
mcnt and needed 10 further constitution
al warrant.
As to the second suggcstiOn-that the
LEGISLATURE be authorized TO subscribe for
some definite number Of shares with said
COmppny or COmpanicS-thc Convention
probably concluded that 1t would be I'M
polite to adopt such II provision, The
Constitution of 1856. which they had az
sembled to revise and amend, had delega.
t,I ,..,,r,II,. IL, tI,, lnYill,fitn .lti,vpI.
mcnt, only the "powcrs necessary for the
Legislature Of Il free Statc,'-Art. !, see.
D.--and IL is reasonable to presume that
the Convention Of 1881 iii not wish to
confer upon the legislative department
anything more than the necessary powers
Of government.
As to the third SlggcstiOn-that 4 pro-
vision he Incorporated in the Constitution
that State aud county internal improve
mcnts by land and water shall forever be
encouraged by the government of this
Statc-wc have seen that this suggestion
was substantially adopted; and we have
reason to suppose that IL was adopted AS Il
mere matter OF form. OutOt respect tor the
chairman Of the committee. william
BlOunt, AN Ex-Governor OF the STATE 81
Tennessee, was doubtless Iull OF years ana
hOuUrS when he occupied II seat III the
Convention Of 1881. The Convention,
therefore, would not reject his report in
toto, but adopted his third suggestion,
which was II "glittcring generality" and
practically meant nothing.
But suppose the whole report of the
committee had been adopted, In that
event the two first suggestions would have
been regarded lis an illustration OF the
meaning OF the last one, and the sphere Of
the term : GucourAgGd' in Art. II. see, .,
would have possessed well defined limita-
tiOns We would have known that the
Legislature was authorized to "subScribc
for some definite number of shares in
organized tor purposes OF in
ternal Improvement. But even this would
not have carried with it, necessarily, the
power to borrow money ana involve the
people IN an immensc debt. IT. would
have placed the State IN the attI-
Lude of a private capitalist, with authority
upon the Legislature 10 sub
scribe for nc greater number Of shares in
said companies than there was money in
the Treasury to pay for.
The report OF the committee, however,
was not adopted in toto. and the question
with which we have now to deal is. what
embraced in the sphere of the term
'll''Nlhr''' VI - ! l 'FN' 'f ~ Wv
Conventions acceptation Of the term? Did
The Convention intend the term to en-
brace as much, or more, or less than the
indicated in their report? No
one, we presume, will say that they in
it to embrace more. Then did they
intend it to embrace as much or less? WEI
are Of the opinion that they intended it to
embrace less; that is to say, they intended
it to embrace the first suggestion Of the
but not the second. And this, ,
we think, will be evident to any II ON Il
little reflection. The second suggestion
was ORA dCbatablC nature, and would have
provoked controversy. many able writers
upon political economy having taken the
negative side OF the question. But ii APP
that there was no debate on the gen
raj provision which was ultimately
and therefore the probability is
nat the Convention did not embrace the
ccomd suggestion within the sphere OF the
ERIN encouraged. =" Nor was it ncccs-
AIRY for them 10 do 50 in order that en-
outraged might be the proper term for
hem to use in the provision in question.
Webster says that "cnCournge' means
to animate; to incite; to inspirit;" and
lr. BlOunt had declared in hls speech
the adoption of the committees rirSt
tGgcstion-tO charter companies to OpeC-
te with their own capital-wOuld be suf- .
cicnt encouragement TO capitalists to !
rake internal improvement enterprises Il !
IcccSS. We are driven, therefore. to the ,
OnclusiOn that Section . Of ArC. II, in the !
Constitution of 1884, was simply u general
revision which meant nothing in partiC- ,
lar, and that it affords nOt even the shall J.
W of constitutional warrant for the stu "
Il. ,t,Ilt,. l,lt ,tFi,t.l, Ia. 2 ,t.l,Y.
a. piled upon the shoulders Of the people. .
Another point. The Governor says that !
The law books ARE full Of decisions grow u
~ ont of the Issuance Of bonds by munic- u
Dal aud other corporations created by the :
legislature, without any lawyer or Judge =
Dubting the power to authorize their issll- u
But even it we admit this to be W
ne, it proves nothing. 1t is evident that
ic Legislature. undrr the Constitutions [,
+ 1876 and 1884, haG no authority to con-
r upon municipal corporations the pow
to issue bonds for any purpose, and it f.
i'll be the duty OF our Supreme Court, q
hcncver this question Is brought dire, tly c
fore that tribunal, to pronounce these \
Is unconstitutional and void. In the
Sc of the Bank of the State VS.. Cooper l.
lcrgcr, j99J Judge Kennedy said ."
knowledge the tOrCc of the authority of s
publication upon analogous eases. 1t s
tcntlmeS presents a torcible md %concli-
W argument. But it is Il sufficient an ri
ler to the argument upon this point, to ~,
y that the cases and decisions referred
/, though analogous. were not matte in II
is precise ease; and | can never follow p,
ecedent, in the line of analogy. when it :;
ads to an iniractiOn of the Constitutions.
ance the necessity of Il frequent rccur- +