River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1881-09-22

If the act is void, and so confers no au-
thority on the respondents, the writ
must issue. The basis Of the applica-
ton is the propositi n that the act of
March 2, 1881, is unconstitutional and
void, only two reasons of which on
account of their superior Importance
we think 1t necessary to consider.
First, because it is contrary to the
amendment TO the constitution of Nov.
6, 1860, to the effect that no law levying
tax or making other provisions for
payment of the bonds shall take effect
till approved by vote of the electors
of the st tie, and, second, because it is
an attempt to give the judges legisla-
tive power, inasmuch as 1t leaves il for
them to determine whether section
or section of the act shall be law. In
answer to the first the respondents urge
that the amendment of 1860 referred
to is itself void because repugnant to
the constitution of the United States.
more importan: and difficult ques-
ton has rarely ever come before
court in this country Courts ALWAYS
regard it matter of great delicacy to
pass on the validity of an act of the leg
islature. 1t is much more so when the
validity of a constitution adopted by
the people of a state is called in ques-
ton; yet, when law for a state is al
legged to be contrary to some clause in
the constitution of the United States,
it is immaterial whether it was passed
by the legislature or by the people in
framing the constitution for themselves.
The decision then goes ON at great
length to discuss the above proposition,
and finally reaches the conclusion that
the act of 1860, known as the expung-
ing amendment, is unconstitutional and
void, as il conflicts with the provision
of the United States constitution relat-
ing to the impairment of contracts
The second and third points, declaring
the act of March unconstitutional.
and ordering the writ of prohibition tO
issue, are discussed at great length.
The whole decision covers about 100
folios. Its great length prevents even
summary, which will be found to en-
brace all the material points, and is, in
fact, an abbreviated syllabus of the decis-
ion: First, that the constitutional a.
mendment of 1860, requiring the
IuSetlOll VI TIC pay liiSlle VI tAio AdllIOdu
bonds to be submitted to the people at
general election, etc, it is void, be-
cause it impairs the obligation of the
contract between the state and the
bondholders; second, that the act of
March last. providing for the adjust
ment of railroad bonds, is unconstitu-
tional and void, because it delegates to
the tribunal created thereby legislative
power; third, that the writ of prohibit
ion to restrain the tribunal from acting
hereunder as prayed. The act of last
winter is thus rendered entirely mop
erative, and the matter of adjustment
of the bonds relocated to future legisla-
lures. The decision is understood to
have been unanimous. The decision,
though it quarters the tribunal estab-
lished for the settlement of the debt
upon basis af 90 cents on the dollar,
as agreed with the bondholder, last
winter. is regarded as victory for the
debt-paying forty-seven. 1t distinctly
empowers future legislatures to pay the
debt without submission to a popular
vote.