The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1880-09-09
TIE LEGAL PHASE OF THE CON
TR0VERSY.

Can a valid law be framed and enacted
under which the Will Of the people can be
consulted, at the ballot box, as to the settle
ment of the State debt? Is there anything
in thus consulting the people, not in har-
mony with our representative system of gov
eminent? These questions admit Of an easy
and ready answer. The first is answered in
the affirmative; the second in the negative.
4 complete law could be passed, providing
that the governor should have power to re-
ceive proposals from the public creditors for
a settlement of the debt, with direction to
submit the same, if not exceeding a named
rate, to the people at the ballot box, for ac-
ceptance or rejection. If accepted, the offer
and acceptance would be q contract, and the
same act, or an act, at the next legislature,
could provide the details for carrying out
the contract. This would not be the enact
ment of law by the people, but action ia
ken by the governor, and people, under
law, enacted by the Legislature.
Such legislation is very common. The law
is passed. Nothing may ever be done under
it. 1t is no less complete and valid enact
ment.
For example; 4 general law is enacted for
the organization OF corporations. Until
some person, or persons, take steps TO or
ganize a corporation, the law remains I'M
used. When parties do take advantage OF
its promissions, they are not finishing the
law, or aiding in making. it. They are act
ing under its authority.
Take another example: By the general in
teranal Improvement law of 1852, it was
provided that the bonds of the state should
be loaned to the various railroad corpo-
rations then chartered, to the extent Of
$4,000 per mile, as soon as the companies
procured stock from individuals and other
sources sufficient to complete the roads, and
had completed and ready for the rails, a
certain part thereof. Now, this was valid
law, but it might never be put in operation
The condition might never arise upon which
the governor would be required to issue the
| bonds. Again, by the first and second sec
| tons Of this now famous statute, ii was made
| lawful for the county court OF any county
through which any railroad passed
| to subscribe stock in the road to be paid by
taxation; but the subscription had first to
/ be authorized by vote OF the people OF the
county, at an election to be held for the
purpose.
| In great case, and when the question
| was new, II was earnestly commended that this
statute was in conflict with the constitution
because not final and obligatory, but Deepen
ding for is validity, upon the vote Of the
| people; and that this was transfer of leg
islatiye power to the people, contrary to oul
republican system OF government. (Set
Louisville Il Nashville h. r. Co., VS.. coun
ty court, Sneed, Sos, 669) But the cour
was unanimously Of the opinion that th'
reference to the people of the subject OF sub
scription or no subscription, did not inval
idate the law. (See p. 669.)
The court, speaking by CaTuthers, judge
said: This is 4 general law-pertect, i'm
ished and unconditional. Il is not made t
depend for its validity on the popular vote
or any other future contingency
True, it will only operate in its yigor, wher
and when the state Of things provided FOL
should transpire Every statute must appl
to some future state of things, and their eu
forcement must depend on the happening c
the things cOntemplated-the action Of 9th
ers, 10. p. 669.) But this eminent judg
went much farther. He declared, as fo
2 himself, he was not able to see why a statut
would not be constitutional, which is mad
8 to depend, by its terms, III every particular
for its vitality, upon an approving vote {
= the people. He said: at was difficult t
/ see, when it is admitted by every one, thu
! the legislation of congress, aud the genera
assembly, may be, as it often has been, COZ
ditional- that in 4 republica
government, this particular condition, tn
Q sanction of the people, would be, by impl
e cation, against the constitution. 1t Is tn
the power to make laws has been surrendert
by the people and vested in the legislator
/ so tnaL no law can DC IL dOC i'Nl OF CHI Ia
D from them; but this does not prove that
q would be an infringement Of the constitute
. for their representatives to call tor. and d
- fer to their opinions on the subject Of ne
S law, fully matured BY them, in all its par
J before it shall go into effect. (See page 67G
y / The decision of this case, set these que
tions at rest, Ia this state. From that d.
. to this, ii has been the constant habit TO co
e suit the people IN this way. tits establish
Is custom-no novelty.
/ In Ross. VS.. Anderso-. county, Jud
Sneed said the bonds were authorized by t
vote of the people, the essential thing" und
the act of the legislature. Upton and Lau
d erdale count bonds have been declared vc
II by our supreme court, for want Of this &c
entail thing" The last session Of the leg
= lature passed :. law to enable these count
l. and the bondholders, to compromise the de
e by the agency OF u vote Of the people. I