Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1881-05-28
THE FIAT.
Granted by Judge williams
Against the Funding Board.

and citizens of the state of Tennessee,
and as such bring their hill in the
chancery court to enjoin the respon-
dants who. it is alleged, constitute a
funding board created by and under
an act Of the general assembly of the
state. and empowered to fund certain
legally issued outstanding bonds Of
the state. The magnitude Of the Ease
demands, in my opinion, something
more than an ordinary fat in the mat
ter. The act does not In terms define
which are legally issued bonds, and
thus occasion necessarily imposes this
judicial discretion on the funding
board.
The bill attacks the act of assembly
on several constitutional grounds,
manyof which we do not think tenable
against the bill in question. 1t also
AYERS in strong terms that the passage
ofthe act was procured by fraud and
corruption, the recital of which is SO
startling that any court organized to
uphold the purity OF the government
and the laws should not pass by un-
noticed or suppress an Investigation OF
those charges on technical grounds by
refusing its aid in the matter. But
still, in obedience to the law, 1t must
act within the scope Of its legitimate
jurisdiction.
1t is clear that the courts have no
power to influence, restrain or com
mand the Legislative department in
the exercise Of its powers, and it must
| decide for itself what these powers
are. If they transcend their coDsti-
tutional powers the courts can, at the
instance of the party aggrieved, de-
clare the act they pass void; nor can
the courts inquire into the motive
that actuated the legislature in their
action. To do this would be to give
them a veto power or a revislonary
power over the legislature which the
constitution expressly prohibits. But
these observations apply to the lcgis
lature itself as a co. ordinate branch
OF the government, and cannot be APP
piled to the funding board created by
the legislature or by their act.
This bill in fl, ct charges, and the
act Of the assembly in question en-
powers, the funding board to make a
contract with certain holders Of Ten
nessee bonds, whereby they are to sur
render their bonds and take in lieu
thereof a new bond payable at the
option of the state IN ninety nine
years. to bear three per cent interest
and the coupons to be made receivable
for all taxes and debts due the state,
with the exception of the school reve-
nue..
1t is plain that the coupon feature
was put in The act and authorized to
be put in the face Of the contract to
make it ~irrevocable and to protect if
under the prohibition of the constitu,
ton of the United States in reference
to the impairment of obligations OF
contracts. This contract was not made
by the legislature, but they established
the funding board and authorized
them to enter into the contract with
such of the bondh )lders as might
chose to avail themselves of the prop
o%sition, and one purpose of the bill is
to arrest this contract before it is ex-
ecuted for the reasons Of the many
frauds set out in the bill.
This sort of contract must submit to
the jurisdiction Of the courts and be
tried like all others. While it is GER
tainly true that any executory con-
tract may be avoided for frauds, acct
|, dents or mistake, yet the courts may
intervene with their i~njunctive power
to prohibit the making Of even an ex.
ecutory contract. When a manifest
, injury may be the result and where
) persons are acting in the relation OF a
trustee without surety or RESPONSE
bility to those whose rights are
affected, this is manifestly the princi-
pie that must govern in cases of this
kind, for if it we're otherwise uncalcu-
. liable injury might be inflicted on a
people supposed to be free without
any way to relieve themselves, if the
courts we're to be ca 'sed against them
and | am opinion that the facts dis
closed in the bill require the strictest
judicial investigation.
The bill is further attacked under
s Sec. 8, Art. II of the constitution o.
the state. which is the same as Sec. 7
! under the old constitution, and in
! effect prohibits the legislature from
I granting any power, privilege, immun.
r lty or exemption other than such as
may be by the same law extended To
0 any other member of the community
D This without doubt prohibits the is.
r sue of the bonds of the state to any
e corporation or individual, and neces-
= sarily invalidates the bonds Of the
. state issued and loaned to several
. railroad companies in the state, and
: If they were void for this reason they
e could not be legally issued bonds Of
Q the state, and could not be funded I'M
der the act in question. But it may
T be said that Sec. 10, Art. IL, gives
= this power in declaring tn It a we'll
regulated system of internal improve.
:. ments ought to be encouraged by the
a general assembly. | am aware that
there is some contrariety Of judicial
. opinion on this subject, but 50 far as
the question relates to our constitu
! ton it has been settled that this
. clause cannot be held to authorize the
. issuance Of the bonds Of the state for
e this purpose. In the conclusion Of an
e elaborate argument on this subject
. Mr.. Justice Freeman uses this strong
s language:
r We need bat say that the legisla-
4 ! fion h.o M uaora ncmor undar fha