Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-03-07

! isstion the rule applicable to It's acts is well stated
! by the supreme court of the United states In the
case OF the United States ~ ATTantC C. Peters, 6Hl
| The language OF the court is: 1t Is universal
principle tcat when rover or jurisdiction Is aeie
matter. and its exercise is cOnded TO his o. telT
iserso1 the acts so done are binding and valid as
| TO the subject matter, and individuals Will not be
ercise IF tbat GiscretIon within the power ana au
| thority conferred The only question which can
| the acis done and the public or any other person
TI1sd Ia f1s qrfv. All other questions are settled
by the decisions made or the act done by the trl-
bunal officer, judicial legislative, executive OF
1 special, unless an appeal is provided for
! But again, suppOsing the frau to be proyed-hoW
| and by what tribunal Is the question to be deter
| mined? The legislature can 5tpsqL any act or
preceding Legislature when vested rights are not In
yolyed but to declare act of legislature is an eX
ercise OF judicial power pertaining alone to the
TeOuIsItiOn when the validity Of statute is attacked
upon the ground of fraud or other improper conduct
on the part Of the legislature by which the act was
Ia the case of Fletcher as Peck reported in G.
Cranefs I'm ted states Rep. 81, the legislature OF
Georgia had declared void an act of the preceding
| legislature making grant OF land TO one James
| fraud on the part of Green
lear in obtaining the oI grant, into the the
hands OF Peck, an innocent purchaser. Chiet-Jus-
tlce Marshall, in deciding the case and declaring
says rs TO the plea of fraud praccsd by Greenleaf:
THAT corruption should find its way into the gov
erhments of our infant republics, and contaminate
the very source OF legislation or hat impure motives
should contribute 10 the passage of a law or the
formation of legislative contract, are circumstances
| deeply TO be deplored. How far court OF justice
would in any case be competent on proceedings In
stituted by the State itself TO Vdcate contract tlS
formed, and to annul rights acquired under that
contract by third persons having no notice or the
| improper means by Whlch IL was oDta!heu, IS d
question that the court would approach with much
ctreun spectlon 1t may wei De doubted now lar the
validity OF law depends upon the motives OF us
trainers. and how far the particular inducements
operating on the members Of the supreme sovereign
power OF State 10 the formation of contract by
that power are examinable in couIt OF Justice
The court then inquiries as to what extent the Sc
coTrupt means must be applied to justify court in
declaring the act void The language Is: Must II
influence Of any kind be sufficient? Must the viii
at.ng cause operate on majority OF on what num-
Georgia was party TO this transaction, and for
party to pronounce IL own deed Invalid, Whatever
cause may be assigned for its iDvalidty, must be
considered as mere act of power, which must ma
its vindication IN q train OF reasoning not often
said are the people and when their agents are I'M
faithful the acts of those agents cease to be obga
tory 1t is however to ne Teeolleeted that the
| and that while within the powers conferred
on them their acts must De considered as the acts or
the people. II the agents be corrupt others may be
chosen; and If their contracts be eXaminable the
mankind, point out mode by which this eXamina-
| ton may be made" The language OF this great
judge is so applicable and so instructive that make
| no apology for quoting 1t at such length.
| have endeavOred TO show that even If fraud and
| corruption were proven on the part of members OF
the legislature it would not nvalidae an act passed
by such a legislature under which an innocent party
had acquired vested rights. But what, pOluL OIL
fact, is the proof upon this question? Upward OF
forty witnesses were examined by the committee on
they knew was not because the questions were not
leading enough to bring II out; and while very I'M
portant lobbying with the usual Accomplishments Of
'Wlning and dining were fully resOTted 10 by inter
eSted parties and especially by those acting In Inc
interest OF IdlrodaS LOT tne puIPOse VI
the passage OF certain acts Intended LOT thelI Dene
fit; and while there Is strong presumptve evidence
gate we may charitaby conclude that the legisla-
lures that assembled during the carnival OF reyelry
| and cCrTupton," referred TO In the report OF the
committee, were no worse than the eighteen upon
| whom the tower of Sloan fell, sinners above all
| other men,"
There is indeed no proof, as all will concede who
read the testimony, that would be suhcient, 10 a
| member OF the legislature. Three witnesses 10
seph A. Cooper, V. f. Gossett, and B. II. Doughty
testify one Of them to having been present In a
room in Nashville during the session OF the legSIa-
| rure OF IS69-70 when W. II. shepherd, repre-
den a five hundTeddOllar-bill, which from Shep-
herds language, it appeared he had paid at the in
| stance OF Bearden. 10 a member OF the legislature
in consideration of his voting for certain railroad
bill, but the member had on the final passage Oi
| him to refund the money. The other two witnesses
relate what Bearden told them to the transaction,
but none OF them disclose the name OF the member
to whom the five hundred dollars had been pad
An attempt is made to prove that two other mem
beTs Of the same Legislature were DrlDed-A. ..
Tate of Granger county, and j. NJ ClemeGson; a
member from the seventh senatorlal a4stdeS bu.
one witness Is produced in each case ana Inc piOol
fails show anything criminal on the part or the
| accused. ,, - -. ,
| of James A. MabTy president of the Knoxville ano
Kentucky railroad, by furnishing members OF the
| legislature with clothing from the establishment OF
! n A. Huntingdon, in Nashville, but while there Ii
reasonable doubt that large amount OF clio hine
| was furnished by Huntington at MaoTyS expense
| there Is no member of the legislature upon WHOM
' T6ese beIieye are the only cases in which spe
efc cases OF bribery are attempted TO be proved Du
neither in these nor in any other case Is IL shoWl
hy direct and positive testimony that money or Otue
valuable thing offered and received to infu5Dc
the vote of a member Of the Legislature or proeur
L sH,a .nfg an act
The i've thousand dollars stated by Mabry to hav
been given by him and others to Governor brown
low or to bis wife, would not have been alluded L
10y if it not been referred to in the report OF IN
committee; for, however FREDERICKSBURG the lralsac
ton was, it had nothing to do with the passage
any law or the issuance Of any bond and Is a no
therefore, relevant to the mater 6eing
a TafIIoad officIaI 10 degrees the Slate bonds in OF
: | der that the railroads might bay them at a lol
r figure and use them at par III paying the Indebted
G | ness of the roads TO the State.
l. IS to the plea VI eXOneTatl0n made Dy the cOlL
mIttee on behalf of the State from liability on bond
= Issued under the BrownlOW administration; II ma
6 | IA page of the report is here missinS.-EDs Al
aggregate as shown by Off .iaI records to S49412
7I6 out Of which the present entire indebted
: Now returning to the point under discussion, II
mark that all the conditions prescribed by the act
e February l. 1852, and amendments as TO the 1851
snee Of bonds 10 railroads that were to be performe
r after the bonds were issued by the governor such
~ e9nditI0ns SUBSEQUENT and could not effect the VI
i iidty of the bonds after delivery and as to cond
: lions PRECEDENT concede that public agents ha'
e not the same power all respects to bind the go
\ eminent that private agents have in regard 10 tine
principals and by no one perhaps has this pFneip
4 than By that eminent iu;ist, Judge story; and n
only In his elementary work on agency, but espec!a
n l. II his reported decision in maSon's reports,
ID The authorities, however heretofore cited by IN
show that in matters II contract cn the part OF
state as it can only contract through IT'S agents, II
J. bound by the rules that are applicable TO pi
S vale persons in similar cases and the question D
IL fore us now IS who under the pfoYlslons on me q
OF February 1, 1852 was to determine whether u
conditions required to authorize the Issuance OF q
IT | bonds had been compiled EVloontly Ine sorS
e. nor, and presume 1t has been SO understooa az
ct acted upon under similar circumstances from U
foundation of the State government, and IL SO, nc
does the latter stand In the light OF legal autnorl
H. and especially or tbs principles recognized ana
ly plteG Ly the supreme court or the United state!
r. Judge Dillon gives ~ fol owing summary OF the
n cisons Of that couTt: Tine purchaser Is D9uhu
mt that there exist legislative authorty not IN GO
hct with the State constitution for the issue OF !
n bonds or commercial securities or the municlp
ne public or quasi corporation, and is bound to noti
re the contents and rectas contained In the lhsti
d, ments; but II such bonds are duly executed ol
MS proper officers and these officers are Interested
le the true construction OF the legislative enactment
that regard, with the power to decide whether COM
IL tons precedent have been performed ana the bon
re contain a recital that such conditions have be
n complied with, or a recital which implies such col
to pliances whether the preliminary conditions cons
az of facts ljs or facts of record, the issue OF
bonds under such circumstances with such reel
nv or facts Teced or Implied In the recital and este
lif action by innocent holder for value before d
sr- 10 show the contrary. In all the cases IN the
l. meme court of the United States that tribunal
as held that The municipal local orcers were CT
IT- stitited the judges decide whether anecedens
| preliminary steps o. conditloL5 had been coInpn
by with and that their decision, stated o. Implied,
ID | the recital was conclusive against the cOFpOf'
maker when the bonds have found their way II
" | the hands of innocent holders"
in But 1t is the requirement OF justice, as well
ts ! rule Of law, that when Il debtor is sought to
raj CHARGED ugCl sUndrg written evidences OF DEBT,
he | bearing his signature AMI valid upon their ia
sty but some of which he alleges he never executed,
TO must designate the precise instrument or paper,
in validity OF which he disputes, and make his deie
ith undei cath.
be The committee not only falls to point out any 5
all ciGc bonds as which the conditions OF the law
en- Vding for their Issuance were neglected or Voia
ion | but makes the statement broadcast that as 10
or bonds issued In aid of railroads, in nearly every
stance the conditions of the law, either precedent
)On subsequent, we're not observed"
as Now, md from oficlaI sources that under
act OF February |, 1882, and amendments,
for 6S2 bonds amounting 10 Sl36S2,OOO, were ISIS
Ter | by Governors Campbell, johnson and Harris,
lei 15,2Ol, amounting TO Sl5,ZOl COO, were ISSUED
on ! Governors BrOwnlOw and Senter. Oh the la
.el- amount designated by the committee as post
bOnG9, l. Is tdlnltted lhdt Cnly ZooS are Outsld
the | ing. amounting TO s., 6;}S 00O and whatever