Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1881-12-24
rnE 1oo.s CASE
Unanimously Advanced On the
Docket by the supreme Court
-OpIniOn of the Court.

| Unanimously Advanced On tnt
Docket by the Supreme Court
Opinion of the Court.
The Supreme court at Nashville
on Saturday, unanimously agreed
to advance the 1908 case on the
docket. The following is full
opinion delivered by Special Judge
Edwin H. Ewing. Judge Ew-
ing, after stating the facts of the
case in regard to the filing of the
bill, an injunction being granted
and dissolved by the lower court,
says:
THE OPINION.
The bill in this case was filed in the
present year in the Chancery court at
Nashville by certain alleged citizens
and taxpayers of the State of Tennes-
see to enjoiA the carrying out and en-
fOrcement OF an act of the General As
sembly of said State. passed at its ses-
sion of 1881, entitled @An act to conf
promise and settle the bonded indebt,
edness of the State of Tennessee :
This act provided for funding all OF
the legally issued bonds of the State,
except certain designated bonds, and
all outstanding coupons thereon up to
and including those falling due July
/, 1881 !; those bonds and coupons
are to be funded into bonds of the
State, bearing interest at 8 per cent,
with coupons receivable for all taxes
and dues to the State, except taxes
for the support OF the common schools
and for payment of The interest on
the common school fund, the bonds
to be styled the compromise bonds
of the State of Tennessee" and to
though redeemable at the pleasure
of the State after five years; "for
the punctual payment of the principal
and interest of said bonds, the faith,
credit and honor Of the State are SOL
emnly pledged" The Secretary of
State, the Comptroller and the Treas
urer are constituted a board "to be
designated funding board" for the
carrying out of this act. The funding
board may sit when and where they
may deem best to enable the holders
of the outstanding bonds to fund
the same. 1t is their duty to exam
inc sucn legally issued outstanding
bonds of the State as may be presented
to them for funding, and if found to
be genuine, to prepare the necessary
compromise bonds, which, when sign
ed by the Governor and the great
seal of the State affixed thereto and
the original bonds registered in
the Comptroller's Office, and full
memorandum of the same made by
the Comptroller, and signed by the
party to receive the comprom ise
bonds. are to be delivered to such par
ty receipting therefor. Certain COM
pensatiOn is also allowed for their
services to the member of the funding
board
By the general appropriation bill Of
the same session of the General Assem-
bly, 81, ,125,000, or so much thereof as
might be necessary, was appropriated
to meet the coupons upon the Conn
promise bonds" as they might fall due
for the next succeeding two years.
The revenue bill of the same session
fixed the State tax for the year 1881
and thereafter at forty cents on the
800, Of which thirty cents was to be
for State and ten cents for school pur-
poses. BY existing law the County
courts were authorized to levy an
amount annually by taxation for gem
eral purposes not to exceed the State
tax, exclusive of the tax for public
roads and schools. Under the revenue
bill Aforesaid State tax OF forty cents
on the dollar has been collected, or is
in this process of collection, thirty
cents on the dollar of which may, by
the terms d the funding bill, be ap-
piled to the coupons of the compro-
mise bonds. All of these facts appear
by statements "a the bill. The bill
was filed before the funding board on
tered upon the discharge of their du-
ties.
The grounds for Injunction stated
in the bill are: That the funding act"
was procured to be passed by bribery
and corruption Of certain members OF
the General Assembly; that the tax
coupon feature forestalls the revenue
and diverts it from current exigencies,
narrowing the scope of subsequent
legislation by an enactment in the
form of a contract binding the reve-
nue. and the political power of the
State over the same" and directing
this revenue exclusively and prefae1a-
italy to the discharge of such con-
tract" thereby denying to the State"
that benignant supervision that will
both allow and prompt her to temper
and adapt her rule to the circumstances
and vicissitudes which the coming
year may bring; that this same feat
ure violates sec. 24, art. IL, of the consti-
tuition, that "no money shall be drawn
from the treasury but in consequence
of appropriations made by law" that
the same feature violates sec. II, art.
XII, of the constitution, which pro
vides that the interest on the common
school fund shall be inviolably appro-
priated to the support and encourage
ment of common schools" that 1T
breaks in upon the previous revenue
system, adjusted to what has been re-
ceivable for revenue thereby amend
ing that system, yet without referring
thereto and thereby violating sec. IL,
art. IL, of the constitution; that act
amends the revenue act of 1873, which
prescribes what shall be receivable for
taxes by adding the compromise cou-
pons to the list of tax-receivables, and
vet does not recite in its caption or
otherwise the title or substance of law
amended; that the act violates sec. 2,
art. IL, of the constitution, forbidding
any person belonging to one depart
ment of the government from exercis-
ing any power belonging to either OF
the other departments; in this case,
the funding board" constituted. of
Secretary of State, Comptroller and
Treasurer, being given judicial power,
etc, and that the legislature looking
to the possible consumption of the rev
enue actually provided by the coupon
did not make adequate provision for
the ordinary expenses of the govern
ment.
The bill in conclusion, prays in case
complainants are "mistaken in regard
to the power and functions of the fund
ing board; and in their construction
of the act in reference to the school
fund, that the same may be construed
by the court, etc. The persons desig-
mated in the act by their official titles
as a funding board were made defend
ants to the bill in their own names,
thus: "M I. Polk, T. n. Nolan and
d. A. Num-, hereinafter styled the
funding board" The injunction prayed
for was granted and thereupon the
defendants, having been served with
process and enjoined according to the
prayer of the bill, appeared in the
Chancery court at Nashville and NOV
ed the court to dissolve the injunction
for want of equity on the face of the
bill. That court dissolved the injunc-
ton and in addition, of it's own motion,