Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-01-04

come down to the word redeem here
aud lind tie word sinking fund proceed
ing Il. Il means a sinking fund to be SO
invested that when the time comes TO
pay the boud there shall be either the
original fund, or It's representative or
substitute thtTe for the purpose, y lit
cra construction Of the word redeem
would destroy the sense. 1t would re-
quirc us TO ignore the legal Specification
Of the term sinking fund and II would
require as 10 discard the concluding
part Of the section which said that the
city council shall have power TO invest.
Now | saw for the sake of strict lit
cral construction Of the word we are not
TO destroy the preceding language. and
destroy a whole sentence Of this section,
when by giving II a little more liberal
construction, by giving ii construction
that It Is susceptible Of, giving It sem
sible and reasonable construction. It com
ports with and is in perfect harmony
with what ,prccedcs and what succeeds.
II stands there as part of the enact
nent, plain and unmismkeable
Now, ! will call your hOnOr's attention
To another thing in this connection In
the Mississippi case, the provision of law
was that the fund should constitute q
sinking fund, under the management and
control Of the cashier Of said hnnk. for
the redemption Of said bonds Now. lit
orally construed, that would mean to
pay the bonds, and for other purpose,
but 10 make the meaning unmistakable.
and put II In as strong language as a
man could state or his pen write Il SAYS
that until the debt should become duo
no part ~ The fund should be- applied
to any other purpose than the cxiiuguish-
ment of said bonds, and yet, under that
law Il was he'd that tho commissioners
might loan 1t ont, aud it was thoir duty
10 loan " out The court says Il was the
duty OF the trustee 10 invest the trust
fund; and consistent with that is the
opinion Of Judge Stayton. iu the CITY
pr Bonham case, whore tho city council
was empowered 70 manage and control
Now. 1t Is said these parts Of this law
nre rcpugnant and that such rcpugnanry
reduces MS 10 the necessity Of rejecting
some pnrt. Wei, that, u occurs To mo.
| puts III" gentleman IN very unf0rtun-
| ate position; we must reject some part Of
| T.! Now SUPPOSE there exists an ncon-
dstcncv suppose that the last scntonce.
| which gives powcr 10 the city 10 invest.
Is inconsistent with the preceding son.
FENCES, thai the fund shall not be diverted
| mud that the treasurer shall honor no 1r8 n
drawn upon such fund cxcent 10
| pay. interest or principal Now. which Il
| TO fnll3 There Is no rule Of which I Am
| aware that the first part or the last part
| Of the statute shall control. There h
in certain Instruments drawn nv pcopie,
| wills aud other things. but Ia the eon,
| sirne,iun OF statute there Il no milo
| that one part or the other, bv reason Of
| ~ relative position, shall stand or fnll,
| but we lorl, Ia the whole purpose OF the
law, and the policy Of the law, 10 ascer-
laln what the legislature regarded as
| OF pre-cminent Importance looking 40
the purpose Of tho law. looking 10 Tho
| policy Of the law INDICATED mmistnkee-
| bly,, all along the line, as I have mon.
| TONED 10 your honor, In the statutory
enncimcnts and constitutional provisions
10 which | referred on yesterday, Il Il
| pam that the policy Of the law IN Texas
y that trust funds shall be Invested. that
| lhey may be made profitable. IL Is moi
merely tho policy Of the law In Texas.
MS evidenced by statute, hut that h h
the policy OF tho law clearly outlined md
| announced IN the elementary authorities
That Is the policy Of the general law.
| OF the common law and equity, with
| reference to trust funds, that they shoi'
he invested 80 that thev may SIai ~, n
profit. Now, II that be the ease, which
pnri OF tho law should fang The mari
| should be discarded that Is against fbo
/ pelcy OF the law, against the general
| purpose and scope Of the law. and thnl
should be retained that hnrmoniFes with
| tN' hNilNlfh lulNnof ana Scope and nOiipV
| OF the law; and | saw upon tho authori.
ties. and upon the points that hive hoen
| made upon this subject. II any mart N
THIS law Is to be rejected Il Il NOT m
/ part that provides for the Investment AZ
Tue. sinking fund, but Il Il the norton
which prohibits tho treasurer from roe
9niizing or honoring drafts upon MIN
That part must be eliminated m the AN.
struction. and not the other part Thor,
u an authority on the question OF con
| siruction which j. very apt on Tint snb.
jet, In 10 Am, st. Rcps., p as. Wilson
/ vs. ponallFon II announces n very IN,
miliar principle, hnt Il does Il In a can.
densed form, and in very striking wav
The opinion Is hy Judge Elliott chiel
lNsticc OF the supreme court Of Indiana
"A statute Is moi to be isolated from IN,
great body Of tho law OF which Il form.
a part; On the contrary, IL is To be tal
On q. forming q part OF one greai system
amt T. to he construed with reference 4.
coordinate rules and statutes"
mat IL The rule have been trying te
| INVOKE IL Is the rule which should Oh
tain IN the construction Of the law vhlrt
| y before this court. We are hravely tolf
IA ma casa that to permit this invest