The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1882-02-18
MILAN EXCHANGE
SATURDAY, FEB. Is, 1882.
1908 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Synopsis OF the Opinions Of the Su
preme Court Judges.

preme Court Judges.
The greatly agitated and heartily
denounced 1908 coupon bill, which
has been before the supreme court for
several weeks, was decided last Sat-
urday.
The following synopsis was tele.
graphed to the Memphis Avalanche.
We have not room for the full report.
The act was declared unconstitu-
tional by majority of the judges.
Judges Turney, Mcfarland and Free
man delivered separate opinions, hav-
ing preached the conclusion that the
act was unconstitutional by different
course of reasoning, and Chief Justice
Deaderick and Special Judge Ewing
decided in separate opinions that the
act was constitutional. All of the
opinions are very lengthy. Delivery
of the first opinion was commenced at
$3.50 a. m. by Judge Turney, who
said: The act is merely proposal for
a contract. The first question is,
Have the complainants any interest
in the suit to entitle them to sue? Is
the inherent power of the court to
give remedy to its citizens about to
be injured, and it must be that the
complainants, as taxpayers, have an
interest to invoke the remedy of the
court. 1t is not necessary to wait I'M
til they have been injured. Injury is
already threatened by the contract,
being about to be contaminated, and
they can move in this matter. If
there is no precedent, we must make
one. | think, however, that wes have
precedent in our own courts. The
action of .quaiti met always applies
where great and irreparaOle injury
is about to follow. 1t is next insisted
that this is a suit against the state by
an act of 1878. The selection of State
officers was merely a convenient meth
cd of carrying out the act. They
could have as well selected their sher-
if or any other officer of the state.
No good reason is given where the
act is unconstitutional that suit
against an otficer,t to prevent him from
executing such an unconstitutional
act, is suit against the state. BY
what rule can servant rise against
his master? If an officer is created by
unconstitutional law, he has no pow
er, and is no officer of the state at all.
There being no legal officer, the suit
against those named as such is not
against an officer of the state. The
argument that the bondholders are
not before the court is not tenable,
this being only proposition for con-
tract. The third section of the act
makes the coupons receivable for all
kinds of taxes, school bonds included,
and thereby violating the general
school fund by making this fund SUBJ
ject to the mortgage law. The ques-
ton then is, shall the constitution or
act of the legislature succumb? One
legislature cannot bind a successive
legislature. This is in direct conflict
with the constitution. No legislature
can exceed its own session. The pol
icy of the constitutional convention
was to limit them to their own term,
as they are not able to see what will
occur in the future by way Of war,
famine, etc. BY this act the first
money must be paid to the bondh9ld,
er before anything can be done, and
hence the Government Is not to pay
its necessary Indebtedness to carry on
the government. The creditor has
no right to expect first mortgage on
the funds of the state. This will be
a surrender Of sovereignty. A state
has the right to be its own financial
agent. | express no opinion on bril-
berry, as under the constitution We
have no right to inquire into the mo-
tives of the legislature. l am there
fore in favor of declaring the act
constitutional and the injunction to
be made perpetual; and in doing this
| do not want it understood that l ia.
vor reputation.
Judge Freeman then followed. My
opinion on jurisdiction accords with
Justice Turney's, and will not say
anything on that. AS to the policy
or wisdom of this act we have no con
Germ. | shut my eyes to everything
and only consider what is law. The
question ofconsequence in politicalpar-
ties we cannot consider. On the coupon
question he said: The court of its own
motion dismissed the bill. The only
question is, can the chancellor or his
motion without demurrer or motion
N 4