Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1878-07-06


judicial decision for the power of
sovereign State to issue its bonds for
any purpose of government, is like
asking for demonstration of one
of the axioms. Euclid or the positive
law by which an individual can
contract debt binding on him and
his property in the future. The ex-
ercise Of the power is so essential to
the very existence of the Govern
ment in certain exigencies, that it
has been conceded by both the
theoretical.and the practical states
men. / have already cited you the
opinion of several of the latter class,
President Polk and others. Every
Government exercises the power.
"The power and jurisdiction of the
English Parliament" says Lord
Coke, sis so trancendent and abso-
| Lutte that it cannot be confined,
either for persons or caususes, with
in any bounds. 18th just, sc. 'It
is" says Sir VIM. Blackstone, "the
exercise of the highest authority
that the Kingdom acknowledges
upon earth. list Blacks, com. 81,
100, 1856. ''The principle in the
English Government that the Par
lament is omnipolent, does not
prevail in the United States, though,
if there be no constitutional obiec-
ton to a statute, it is with us as alb
solute and uncomfortable as law
flowing from the sovereign power"
LIST Kent's COM, 44S. "The accep-
ted theory, on the subject" says
Mr.. Cooley, appears to be this:
In every sovereign state there re-
sides an absolute and uncontrolled
power of legislation. In Great
Britain this complete power rests in
the Parliament; in the American
States it resides in the people them
selves as an organized body polite.
But the people, by creating the
Constitution of the United States,
have delegated this power as to GER
tain subjects and under certain res
trictions to the Congress of the
Union. For the exercise of the
legislative power, subject to this
limitation, they create, by their
State Constitution, legislative de-
partment on which they confer it;
and, granting it in general terms,
they must be understood to grant
the whole legislative power which
they proposed, except so far as at
the same time they saw fit to i'm
pose restrictions. While, therefore,
the Parliament of Great Britain
proposes, completely, the absolute
and uncontrolled power of legisla-
ton the legislative bodies of the
American States possesses the
same power except, first, as
it may have been limited by
the Constitution of the State. A
J legislative act cannot, therefore, be
declared void unless its conflict
J with one of these two instruments
can be pointed out" Cooley on
J Constitutional limitations, p. 172.
Neither the Constitution of the
United States nor the Constitution
of the State of Tennessee contains
any restrictions upon the power OF
the Legislative departments of the
State creating debts for Gubernato
rial purposes or issuing its bonds
therefor. On the contrary, the
Constitution of 1884, article II, sec.
ton 8, expressly declares that SO
Well-regulated system of internal
, improvements is calculated to de-
: velOp the resources Of the State anC
. promote the happiness and pros
perity of her citizens, and, there
fore, it ought to be encouraged by
the General Assembly" 1t is d
matter of history that the trainers
of this Constitution construed this
cause into a positive direction by
the people to issue bonds for pur-
poses of internal improvement
The issuance of State bonds is con
coded to be legal by the Supreme
Court in the State VS.. Jefferson
Turnpike Company, Humphreys
reports, 305; and in the State VS.
Central Turnpike Company, IL
Humphreys reports, 388. Judge
} Green delivered the opinion of the
Court in both cases.
The utterances of our eminent
Judges have been in strict accord
with the principles of government
already quoted. Judge Haywood
said: "The Legislature of TenneS-
see can do all things not prohibited
by the Constitution of the State OF
of the United States" Bell VS..
Bank, of Nashville, Peck 269.
''The sovereign legislative power OF
Tennessee" says the same eminent
Judge, ''like the sovereign power OF
all other States, of whatever char
acter they may be, may do all
things not naturally impossible,
which it deems prOmOtive of the
public welfare, except in such in
stances whereby the fundamental
law of the Nation, written by the
mighty hand of the people, is
forbidden. And in any instance
where legislative power is ques-
toned, it bounds over opposition,
unless a restriction upon that power
in the particular instance can be
clearly pointed out" Upton VS..
Harris, Peck 41S. "UpOn this
point" says Judge Turley, " all we
deem it necessary to say is, thatt
State of Tennessee is IA sovereign
and Independent power, except so
as it is restrained by the Constitu-
ton of the United States; that its
Legislature has unlimited power of
legislation, except so far as it is res
tricted by the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution
Of the State of Tennessee" Hope
VS.. Deaderick, Sth Hum. g.
This eminent Judge, as is well
known, first authOritatively enunci-
ated, contrary to the opinion of
Chancellor Kent, that a private
corporation, as it was authorized to
contract debts for the purposes of its
creation, so it might issue its obli-
cations in time for their payment.
Union Bank VS.. Jacobs, 9th Hum.
SIG. This doctrine has been extern
ded to other corporations. Ohio
Life Insurance and Trust Company
VS.. Merchants Insurance Company,
| 18th Hum. %; Moss VS.. Harpeth
Academy, 18th Heiskell's Reports,
1873; and even to municipal corpoa-
lions, Adams VS.. Memphis & Little
Rock, r. r., End CaldWell's reports,
Gas.
The law books are full of decisions
growing out of the issuance of bonds
by municipal and other corpora
lions created by the Legislature,
without any lawyer or Judge
doubling the power to authorize
their issuance. The case of the
Louisville & Nashville Railroad,
VS.. the County Court Of Davidson
county, LIST Sneed's reports, 673, is
a noticeable case in this branch of
the law.
On this subject the remark of a