The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1882-02-18
1908 UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
(Co1lcluded on 18th paac. }

StiN""tNh"i NV - INV ihpdlIlHS Jne
obligation of contract and hence
there is no threatened damage to the
taxpayers. We are asked to prevent
something that does not exist. The
subsequent legislators still have the
right as to whether they appropriate
the money or not. If they do not
make an appropriation, then it is
with them to suppose that the su.
preme court would decide otherwise.
That we would, and therefore we
should decide as they think we
would and conflict with our views, is
libel on the supreme court of the
state. If the coupons are drawing
money from the treasury, then the
appropriations are already made and
the sovereignty of the state is still
maintained; and this coupon feature
does not take it away from any sub.
sequent legislature. We have an ex-
istlng debt which we should settle.
This act settles an abatement of the
interest, and does not violate any
constitutional enactment.
1t Is question for futurc legisla-
ture as to whether they will recog-
nize this act. They can repeal 1t, |
think" AS to the constitutionality of
the act he said: 1.-The result would be
that future legislatures would have to
levy tax for the payment of coupons.
The question is that coupons shall
not be receivable for taxes, but us to
whether they can stipulate in the
contract that the law shall not be
repealed. The legislative power is
limited to the two years for which
they are elected. One generation
cannot legislate for the next. The
state can contract to pay its debts
and pledge the honor and faith of the
state to the payment of said debts,
but the state cannot be coerced into
the payment of the debts. The state
Is sovereign, and 40 such power can
or ought to exist. The federal courts
will take jurisdiction to compel the
state to execute its contract. ] he
state being sovereign, may repeal an
act, and the mere fact that she has
entered into a mere contract will not
prevent her from repeating it. If a
future Legislature should be of opin.
ION that it is unjust they can repeal it.
But when the federal cou.t was
invoked, they would not consider as
to whether the contract was obtained
by fraud, and that the state would
have been forced to pay it. The
right of the state then follows to
assert its right and maintain its gov,
eminent, and the stipulation that the
act should not be repealed in law
destroys the whole contract. Juris.
diction is vested in federal courts.
and their decision is the law in the
case. The courts ought to sustain
the legislature if possible. l do not
know whether it will effect the inter.
est OF the state. 1t resolves itself
into this, "Will the sovereign power
OF the state remain with the beonle
or shall it be Destroyed" If the act
OF 1881 be out of the way the officers
OF the state have no authority. The
state cannot be supposed to compel its
officers to perform an umconstitu.
tional act. 1t is true, prima facie,
valid, and they will have the color of
authority but if the courts cnn look
this far they can look further. This
state cannot be sued, but sueing an
officer acting under void authority is
no suit against the state. 1t is as
much the duty Of the state court as
OF federal court to declare void any
law in violation of the constitution of
the state, and in some cases 10 bring
suits against officers of the state to
prevent the violation of the constitu,
ton of the United States. The
question is can they decide the ques~
ton now or wait until a wrong is
committed? If the court has iurisdic,
ton they can decide it now before an
injury is committed. The funding
board are the only ones that could be
made defendants. The taxpayers
are the proper ones to bring suit. | !
stand on my own convictions. | am
OF opinion that the decree of the
chancellor dismissing the bill is erro-
neous.
Justice Deadrick delivered compar.
auyely brief opinion, siding with
Judge Ewing, and entering into no
discussion of the points involved in
the lawsuit, on the ground that it had
already been SO fully discussed by his
brother judge, and stating four mate.
rial nAlnfs ON uhinh he Ill L