Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-01-17
WHAT IS IT?
The AttOrney.General Seems 70 Have
POked Up Something or Other in
fhe County Court.
He Declares That the Barbour Lewis
Commissioners We're Usurpers-
Colonel Can't Replies.

/ The question Of the issuance OF bonds by the
| County Court was discussed in that great
and good body yesterday. Extein Norton
was represented by Messrs. CAN'T and Patter-
son. The argument on the question was
opened by County-Attorney Gibson. He
vTss followed by attorney General Turner.
who made very creditable speech. As it
meets the question fully, and is a complete
exposition OF his side Of the case, opposing
a compromise, it is here presented pretty
fully. The following is the gist OF it;
GENERAL TURNER STATEMENT.
The act of 1852, entitled the General
Inprevement Act" enacted that no subscrip-
ton, unless ordered by a majority of the le-
gal voters Of the county, should be made to
stock in railroad companies, provided, how
ever if the vote should be ''no subscription"
then no further application could be made
upon the county to subscribe until six months
had elapsed, and then no subscription could
be legal and binding upon the couI ty unless
approved by majority of the justices of the
peace of the county in commission. in the
year 1863, Barbour Lewis, as chairman of the
Board of Commissioners IN this county
which was an illegal body unknown by the
law, usurping the perogatives of the County
Court, voted a subscription of $500, 600 to the
stock of the Mississippi River Railroad Com
pany Without submitting it to the people
and unknown to and unrecognizsd by the
County Court, they claimed this right to sab
scribe for the stock mentioned, by virtue of
acts OF the legislature amending
the charters of certain railroads. among
them the Mississippi River railroad,
whereby the County Court Of this county was
authorized to vote subscription Of the
kind. a majority of all the magistrates con-
curing. Lewis and his commissioners, while
usurping the powers of the County Court,
not enly voted the subscription of 100000,
but proceeded to levy tax upon the people
to pay the first instalment of the bonds In
1870 the County Court resumed its functions
and found the levy OF the taxes by Barbour
Lewis and commissioners unsolicited, and
an order was passed enforcing the collection
of said tax This was the only recognition
of the subscription made by Lewis and the
commissioners ever given by the County
Court prior to the adoption of the present
constitution OF the State. Section 30 of the
present constitution OF the State declares
that the credit of no county, city or town
shall be given or loaned to or in aid of any
person, company, association or corporation
except upon an election to be first held by
the qualified voters of such county, city or
town, and the assent of three-fourths OF
the vote cast at said election; nor shall any
county, city or town become a stakeholder
with others in any company, association or
corporation except upon a like election and
the assent of like majority.
Mr. Turner contended that the action of
Barbour Lewis and the commissioners was
null and void ob Einitio, and that the subse-
ouent action of the County Court in enforcing
the collection of his illegally levied tax,
could in no sense be taken as a recognition
or ratification of his act in subscribing to the
stock That when the County Court was
bia1 nd hv ha
constitution of 1870 there was existing no
contract legal and binding upon the people
of Shelby county touching the matter of
stock in the Mississippi River Railroad; and
any action of the County Court thereafter in
reference to said stock must be treated as an
entirely new contract and must be
in conf, rmity with the then existing law of
the land. From that day to this no action
has been taken by the County Court such as
is authorized by the law whereby the people
of Shelby county could be bound on these
so-called obligations born of Barbour Lewis's
fraud and usurpation. Mr.. Turner con-
tended that the Upton county case was in
deed an authority in favor of Shelby county
in this, that the subscription in Upton
county was made by the County Court, and
by the County Court subsequently ratified,
whereas the subscription in Shelby county
was made not by the County Court but by an
unauthorized body OF usurpers, whom the
Supreme Court declared had no existence as
a de jure nor as de facto body; and the
County Court of Shelby has not even digni- :
fed Barbour Lewis's subscription by giving
it a ratification. The Supreme Court of
the Cnited States in the Upton county
case held that as the Upton County Court
had voted the subscription, and that it was
at the time de taetO body, and its action as
such had been subsequently ratified by the
County Court of Upton county as a de jare
body; and that subsequent to this ratification
innocent parties, without notice of the fraud
that it was claimed existed in the court that
granted this subscription, held the bonds as
purchasers for a valuable consideration,
that the county could not be heard against
ouch holders. If the Upton county case had
been like the Shelby case-that is to say, if
the subscription had been voted by body of
usurpers unknown to the law, ard that fact
had been apparent upon the face of the bonds,
as exists in the Shelby county case-the rule |
of the court, as laid down, would have been
in favor of Upton county; and hence it
follows that by every parity of reasoning the |
Shelby case is decided for the county in
effect by the opinion in the Upton county
case-the opinion OF eminent counsel referred
to by Colonel CAN'T to the contrary notwith- |
standing. Mr.. Turner insisted that the
County Court could only exercise the taxing
power in the manner provided by the consti-
tuition and the laws in conformity Herewith. |
COLONEL CAN'T
spoke at some length on the subject. He
evidently considered the attorney generals
speech as containing dangerous material |
He discussed the generals position pretty
going over il in detail. To boil |
down the conclusions he desired TO impress
upon the court, he maintained that the en- |
forcement of the collection of the tax levied |
by Barbour Lewis and his commissioners by |
the County Court subsequently, was such |
and adoption of the action of |
Lewis and his commissioners as would bind |
the county, and that all subsequent acts |
Of the County Court were but con-
tinuous Publications of the origi- |
nal transaction, and binding upon |
the county. The county had never |
repudiated the action of Barbour Lewis and |
his commissioners; on the contrary, it had |
taken it up, had accepted it, made ii its own. |
1t had never questioned that action, and it |
could not now strike blow at the indorse-
nent it had given. Colonel CAN'T made, as
he always does, keen and incisive speech. |
Mr.. Wilson and Mr.. Messick then spoke,
.akipg the same views as the Attorney gen.
eral. Colonel Patterson spoke at some
ength in behalf of Norton. Colonel Casey
Young, who happened to be present, made a
lew remarks, not indicating the exact views
he held, and said he would make speech on
he subject in the morning. Judge Archi-
BALD Wright also made some remarks touch
Dg the decisions of the Supreme Court OF
Tennessee and of the Supreme Court of the
Jnited States. General Turner made short
answer to Colonel CAN'T, and court was adj
II