Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-01-09

.
or, and for the faithful periorulnn's "a
such dulles only does he give nc vynu
| required by law to be given ~ I'M.
( CITY charter sec. 30 Win inc quts'ivu
7 as to whether investments made ny cue
! city are profitable or unpHonlapl', "a.
cure or insecure, be has Absolutely nom
lug to do, aud neither he nor MS nonls,
men have the slightest interest beyond
that Of any other tax payer IN taiu
city. The only duty he Is ohargeaele
with, with respect 10 its eNeu.l 20
or investments Of funds IN MS handst
ordered 10 be made hy ihe, city cohh,h
h 10 SEQ that such expenditures or ~
vestinents, as to the object or character
Of the same, are authorized by law.
Beyond this he owes no duty with re-
spect TO such expenditures or invest
mruts, and has no right 70 question OF
inquire into the same, were thls ue
murrer presented by the comptroller, %
by bondholdcr having nn interest ~
the fund sought 20 be Invested, IN suit
wherein snid comptroller or such bono,
holder was objccting TO the proposed
investment of a sinking fund, very
different question would arise; but COM
ing. as lt does, from the city's treasurer,
in suit wherein he Is Obiccting TO nn
investment proposed to be made by the
city council, IL cannot be sustained, me
special demurrer Of the defendant rails
INK AHAA uAfaLNNA AAfAFANAN AAhaA ~
and the same is hereby ovcrrnled.
Coming now 70 the remaining ques-
tons raised by the defendants general
demurrer, ] will consider the three re-
remaining objections together, they be-
ing as follows:
.. That ,he Investment Of the sink
ing fund mentioned IN the petition. as
] proposed by plaintiff iu said miuun IS
Illegal, contrary 70 law, and unauthor'
ized by law.
3. That " the section Of plaintiffs
charter under which Il claims the right
10 make the proposed Investment OF
I said sinking funds be construed 10 an
th0nae The snme, then that said section
j. yiolntive Of the constitution Of the
state. and therefore void.
4 Thai If sal sect on Of gaid charter be
constitutional, then that by the same sec
ton the defendant, as city treasurer,
Is forbidden tn pay out of siid slukng
funds any warraut drawn for any pur-
pose other than 10 pay the interest upon
or TO redeem the ,bouds Tor which said
blinking iuni is clpateil, aud therefore
be- ought not, by Dee court TO be COM
! peeled 10 pay the VI lrrauta drawn on HIN
by plaintiff as set but IN the petition.
The charter Of H. city Of Fort Worth
u an act of the legislature Of the state
of Texas, the RJ-makng power OF our
state, and therefore has The force aud
effect OF law ! then, by tie proyis,
ions Of said clJHer properly construed,
authority Is g/cn 10 the city TO make
tic ncgsimeJ Of the sinking fund as
proposed in ~ petition. such Investment
i a@ or ne oaaor2seSf ID 'S aa contrary to
section IS of said charter provides.
AN oo2nI shah specify for What pur
l pose tLei Wrro issued, and shall not
u' mv/d II sold for less than their par
value /nd when any bonds are issued hy
HE rs fund shall be provided to pny
/ the /tercst and create sinking fund
! 10 i/ieem The bonds, which fund shall not
! hc/ivcrted or drawn upon for any other
[ p/pose' aud the city treasurer shall
Inor no drafts on said fund except to
/lA interest unun or red 'ru said
/'nnds, for which L was provided The
/cliy council shall have power TO invest
I &c sinking fund in United States bonds,
| city Of Fort Worth"
/ The plainth contends that bv the pro.
/ visions of this section direct aud positive
/ authority rs given IL 10 make the pro.
! po@pi Investment Of said sinking fund
| while on the other hand the defendant
! contends that said section when properly
! construed does not authorize the invest
I mehi sought TO be made If the words of
] inc list clause are given their literal
D
| M dirccl terms authorizes the city to in
| vest The sinking fund raised for the re.
! dempton of It's bonds In bonds Of the CITY
| OF Fort Worth, Mr., Eudllch. In his OK
| crllght WORK on Interpretation of stntutes
section !, says: when. indeed. tho IAN.
guaHc loi statutc) is not only plain. but
/ admits OF hut one meaning, the nsk of
! lh{eIpht9uoh can hardly be- said 10
| arse anl thuSr incidental rules. vhicl,
are merely aids to be invoked when the
meaning. IL difficult, are not TO he re-.
| gIrdrl' II V NOT allowed. says Nnttcl. to
/ interpret what mas no need of iutgrprrta.
upn. such lgnguugt best declares, with
ont more, the Intention Of the law riypr
and Is decisive Of H. The lcaisinturr
must be- Intended presumed 10 mean
Whnt % nus plainly expressed and cuusp-
! Vu'hly iNetc rs no room for cougtrut-
uon,' Aud Mr. SoutherIund ON SHIN
tory Construction, section glp. Eyt,
The statute Itself furnishes the be.f
means OF its own exposition aud ii the in
tent OF the act eau be clearly asrcrtniprl
nom q reading OF lbs provisions and ali
rs parts may be brught into harmony
herewith, that intent mist prevail wu1.
uu. es9Illhg 70 other aids for cOnAtrut-
| ton. Mr Endlich further saws l,er.
ton %, What is called the policy of Tho
government with reference TO any plr.
| uvulAr legislation is said to be 100 ma
stable foundation fur the clnsttlit,,in,,
VI statute, The clear language OF "A
statute can neither be restrained nor eX.
teuled by nny consideration OF supppsrI
wisdom or policy. So long as a i,t,..l,
i've enactment violates no constitutional
pipNlsloh OF principle, u must be depturi
la own suiliccut aud cunclufiyp cyideueo
OF Nhe Justice, proprcty aud policy nf us
passage lhc language Of MIR. Jugtie,,
| story concerning constitutional coustruc.
| uou applies almost equally TO thnt nf
statutes Arguments drawn from Ina.
pohcy or Inconvenience ought horp to
hnye NO weight The only sound prinrl.
que Us To dcelptcit a lex scnpla tst. Ia iol.
| low Nud to obey, Nor ii prnriple 40
JUST could be overlooked could there be-
| wei found moro unsafe guiS4 of prac-
nee than mere policy and CONVENIENCE
Men on such subjects comp oxiounlfy i,lf, (,
FROM each other, Some men dilfcr fr'u,
themselves at different times Ihe Motley
Of One age may IN suit the wishes or noi.
icy OF another. And further section ~
~ nus beon said that though vested
rights are Invested those who have 10 lu-
urptet law must give effect to II. They
are bound TO do this, even II they susppct
TON conjccturnl ground onlyl that Tho
language used does not faithmy ~
press what was she real Intention of HE
legislature when IL passed the act or
Would have been It's intention " the speci.
ne case had been proposed to il, Eyen
whom court Is convinced TINT the lcri.l
turc really meant and Intended something
not expressed by the phrnseolnsy IN
the act. II win not deem itself authorized