The Indianapolis journal., 1890-02-01


Of are lawfully present iCush. Par. Law. Sec.
247.) The body cannot act without the presence
Of a quorum. and the act Of the quorum, Is the
act of the body. State rel. vs. Wilkesvfile
Tp., 20 Ohio ST.. 26s; Mcfarland VS.. Crary,
Wend, 1881"
The logical sequence from the premises thus
laid down is that the vote Of the majority of the
quorum present Is effective. In Hamilton va
State. Ind. 452. this court quoted with ap-
vs.. Ruger. 21 wend.. 1s2. that "where the au-
thority Is public and the number Is such as TO
admit OF majority, that will bind the minority
but denied .ts application because the staIure
required all the members OF the body TO he pres
ent at Its meetings, and all were not present.
The doctrine of Hamilton VS.. State Is. therefore,
not opposed to the later cases, but, on the con-
trary, is in harmony with them, for IL recognizes
the general rule that where the statute does not
otherwise provide, a majorIty of the quorum may,
when quorum Is present. lawfully transact
business. The case OF the State ex rel. vs. Will
iams LA Ind, 5S1, is not in point. for what was
there decided Is that u county auditor mao no
right TO vote upon resolution. although ne nad
a right To vote in case an effort to elect a
county superintendent results In ne III w9nlt ,,
not benefit the appellant if we should hold that
the councilmen present and not voting d1d, IN
effect, oppose the resolution. and certainly, the
utmost that can with the faintest tn2e OF plausl-
bility be claimed Is that their votes must be
counted against the resolution. Ii Is incon-
ceivable that their silence should be allotted
greater force than their active opposition would
have been entitled to have assigned 1t had 1t
been manifested. II we should assume that their
votes are To be counted against the resolution,
then the Mayor had the casting vote. and ne
gave il in favor OF the measure by declaring the
resolution adopted. This is so expressly decided
in Small vs.. Dune, 20 Me-, 7S. But we think tnat
members present and not nDtins, assented 10 the
adoption OF the resolution.
We have no doubt that the Common Council
had power to contract for lighting the city, or TO
furnish light from works OF which II Is, or may
become, the owner. The power exists under the
rest our decision upon that act, for the authority
Is conferred by an act entitled "An act in fela-
tion the lighting OF cities and towns. and fur
nishing the inhabitants thereof with the electric
light and other forms of light. and providing for
the right of way and assessment of damages,
and declaring an emergency" ElliOtts Supp,
embraces but one snbject The subject is that of
light, and the object that OF enabling the citizens
TO obtain electric other lights. The act Is SIM
liar in its general scope and effect to acts pro-
yding for furnishing towns and cities with weter,
natural gas and artificial gas. and 10 Is not OBJ
noxious to any constitutional objection. What
ever was gernane to the subject OF the act that
Is, the subject of light, IL was proper to embody
in the bill. We have no doubt OF its cOnstitu-
tionalty.
The first section of the act provides that the
Common Council of any city shall ''have pow er
to light the streets, alleys. other public places
with the electric light or other form OF light, and
to contract with any individual or corporation
for lighting such alleys, streets and other public
places with the electric light or other form OF
light, and this provision, taken In ITSELF Is broad
enought to authorize the Common Council to buy
and operate the necessary plant and machinery:
Bnt statutes are not TO be considered as Isolated
fragments OF law, but as parts of one great sys-
TEN. bradley VS.. ThixtOn, III Ind, 255; Nor
risOn VS.. JacOby, IA Ind, "a; Chicago. etc. K.
r. Co. vs. Summers, 113 Ind. 10; Robinson VS..
Rippey. Ill Ind, 112; Humphries VS.. Davis,
100 Ind, 274.)
IL there were any doubt as to the meaning of
the act 1t would be removed by considering 1t. as
it Is duty to do, i'm connection with the gener
al act for the incorporation OF Cities for that act
confers very comprehensive powers upon mimi
works. and contains many broad general clauses
akin to those which Judge Dillon desig-
mates as general welfare clauses" Our own de-
cisions fully recognize the doctrine that muni-
cipal corporations do posses. under the general
act. authority as broad as that here exercised,
and the operation Of that act Is certainly not
VS.. Mears. IL Ind, 215; City of Richmond VS..
McGirr, 78 Ind, 90; City OF Anderson VS.. O'Con-
nor, 90 Ind. 163; Leeds vs. City of Richmond.
Where a municipal corporation has authority
to purchase property, 1t may issue its bonds in
unless there is % sSme statutory OF s
Ind, l62; New Albany Bank VS.. Danville, 90
Ind, 5O4; Daily vs. Columbus, 40 Ind. 169;
Board w. Day, 10 Ind, 45O' Lafayette va. Cox,
In the case of the City of Richmond VS.: Nc.
Gfrr, SUPRA 1t was said: "As to the kind and
form OF the evidence and obligations TO be exc
cuted the Council, in the exercise of sound dis
cretion. must determine. and their determine
ton, in the absence of fraud, Is final" Many
and il Is undoubtedly correct as applied to mu-
njcipal corporations of such a class as
cities and counties, but not as applied
to school corporations. and like corporations
with very limited powers. The decision in the
case of The City OF Aurora VS.. West, % Ind. 50,
has no relevancy to the question here under dis
cussion for there the question to the
power of the city to incur debt il aid OF rail-
road company. while here the question is as to
the authority CT the city to issue bonds in pay
ment for property it had power to purchase. The
case of State ex rel. VS.. Houser eft al, 65 Ind,
155. does not decide that city may not issue
bonds to pay for water-works purchased. What
it decides is that city may not issue and sell
bonds in order to obtain money to construct
water-works. The difference between that case
and this Is very broad and very plain. Here
bonds to be issued to pay for property pur-
chased. There they were issued TO be placed in
the market for sale. Issuing bonds to pay for
property purchased Is very different thing
from issuing bonds to obtain money. judgment
affirmed.
Bynum Mr.. Speaker.
In the discussion of the ReformatOry
sewer bill, Feb. 16 1888, in the Indiana
Legislature. Representative Shockney, OF
Randolph, who had moved its indefinite
postponment. yielded the floor temporarily
IN Mr. Wilson who desired Tn make an ex.