Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-08-20


able but absolutely void, for the reasons
set forth In the bin that had been 80
filed In the Superior COnrt OF Stanly
county TIE case was duly matured, ana
the court below. having considered the
same. entered decree sustaining the
validity OF the bonds. granting the IN
junction as prayed for. and appointing
receiver 10 take charge OF the money
so in the hands OF said treasurer. FROM
this decree the defendants below sued
out this appeal.
NOT VALID OBLIGATIONS.
fThe opinion of the Circuit Court OF APP
peals Is a long and interesting one ~
SAYS in part:
"The first question raised by the assign
ments OF erref is as TO the validity or
constitutionaIity Of the legislation under
which the bonds claimed by the appellecS
were issued. In the case Of Commission
ers OF Staniy County VS.. SnUggs. SUPRA
the Supreme Court Of North Carolina heId
that the bonds issued under the legisia-
ton mentioned, were not the valid obil-
cations Of that county. The reasons
given by that court in support Of said
decision were that the journals Of the
two houses Of the General Assembly Of
that State. for the sessions thereof, when
chapter 23G Of the Acts Of North Caro-
lima. 1901. and chapter 1873 Of the acts
of that State for the year 1887. were pass
ed, did not show afiirmatively that the
yeas and nays. on the second and third
readings of the bill, had been entered
upon said journals, as required by the
Constitution of that State; and also that
the Code Of North Carolina. section 1896,
authorizing county commissioners TO sub
scribe stock TO a railroad company when
.lsf4 of n
railroad, did not include a railroad not
begun TO be built before the Constitution
Of that State was adopted; and said Su-
preme Court also held that il was com
petent to introduce such journals for the
purpose of showing that an act that had
been duly enrolled, and approved by the
presiding officers of said houses,
was not in fact passed in the
manner required by the COnsu-
tuition of that State and that where the
journals of the General Assembly show
that "A law authorizing county 10 issue
railroad aid bonds, was not passed In the
manner required by the Constitution, the
purchasers OF the bonds were chargable
with notice of such fact. The peo-
pie of the State of North Carolina, in
their Constitution, have expressly limited
the power Of the Legislature relating 10
lANdllNls anu lOiHltu Oul Aft tfA Adi4i
prerequisites that must not
only exist as a fact. but also appear on
the journals of that Legislature in a
certain way. The Constitution thus in
plain words clearly indicates the way,
and the only way, that the Legislature
can authorize the counties and the cities
of the state 10 exercise the power OF
taxation. The entry of The yeas and
nays. on the last two readings, must APP
pear on the journal I'm order TO COM
ply with the requirements of the Consti-
tuition, and unless they do so appear
the bill has not become a law, and the
evidence of its nullity is the journal pro-
yided by that Constitution itself
AUTHORITY OF THE CODE.
The appellate court quotes freely from
the opinion of the Supreme Court of North
Carolina in Commissioners, &C., VS..
supra, and continues:
"The compliments below insisted that.
even if the court should hold that the
acts referred to were not passed accord
ing to the requirements Of the Constitu-
ton of North Carolina. and that they
were, therefore, void, yet that still the
bonds so issued were valid nevertheless.
for the reason that the commissioners of
Stanly county had the power TO issue the
same under the authority of sections 1895,
1891, 1899, and 2O00 of the Code OF that
state; and that, as all the sections Of said
Code were enacted by having been read
three several times in each house Of the
General Assembly, and by having passed
three several readings on three different
days in either house. and by having the
ayes and nays on the second and third
readings entered in the respective jour
mails, the action so taken under the pro-
visions Of said sections was legal and the
bonds so issued were valid The court
below so held, and the remaining assign
ments Of error relate thereto"
THE questions raised by this appeal.
and the legislation involved with the
same, have been directly considered by
the Supreme Court of the state of North
Carolina, and the decisions Of that court
have been against the contention OF the
below-Union Bank of
Richmond VS.. Commissioners Of Town Of
oxford, 11g n. c.. PA, 25 $. T., 96G; Board
of Commissioners of Stanly County et
al, VS.. Snuggs, County Treasurer, III
y. c., 39i, % 5. f., $780, City Of Charlotte
Rodman VS.. Town Of Washington, 122 n.
c., 80, 80 S. T., 11S; Board of Commits
sioners of Wilkes County VS.. Call ct. al,
81 $. T.. 4Sl in which case ii was also
held that sections 1996-20Q0 of the Code
Of North Carolina. authorizing county
TO subscribe stock to a
railroad company when necessary to aid
in the completion o IA railroad, do not
include a railroad not commenced before
the Constitution Of 1868 was adopted.
With these decisions OF the Supreme
Court of North Carolina we are in full
accord II we had reached a different
...st }, rIra- III
Of the court of last resort
in North Carolina. upon the questions
involved herein. relating, as they DO, to
the Constitution Of that State, and 10 the
validity of certain acts OF it's General
A ssembly and their construction, be re-
spected by this court. Indeed are we
not bound by them?
THE BILL DISMISSED.
After quoting many decisions bearing
ON this subject, the court concludes:
"oTbe court below held that the legis-
lation relating TO the Yadldn Railroad
Company, under which the election au-
thorizing the bonds TO be issued was held
was invalid. because the requirements of
the Constitution Of North Carolina. as
to entering the yeas and nays on the
were not complied with. In this
we agree with that court But il also held
that under sections l9e6-20OO Of the Code
of North Carolina, the County Commits
sioners had the power TO subscribe for
and issue the bonds Notwithstanding the
fact that the proposed railroad had not
then been begun. and though the citizens
of the county had not any direct interest
in IT, This ruling of the court below is
opposed TO the construction put upon
those sections of the North Carolina Code
Of Haf
the facts connected With this
al b.. fnA of