33 N.J.L. 312 | N.J. | 1869
The opinion of the court was delivered by
On the 5th of February, 1865, the authorities of the city of Trenton passed an ordinance to borrow three hundred thousand dollars to pay for volunteers and substitutes, and issued their bonds for the same, and that the principal and interest of said bonds should be raised
It is objected by the city, First — -that this act of April 5th, 1866, is a violation of the constitution, as impairing the obligation of contracts. Secondly — the city contends that the said act of the 5th of April, 1866, was repealed by the act passed the same session, approved the 11th April, 1866. Pamph L. 1091.
First. How does this act of the 5th of April, 1866, impair the obligation of any contract ? The contract between the city and the bondholders is, that the city will pay the bonds and interest as they respectively become due. This poll tax is in no way especially pledged, either by the ordinance or said act of 1865. There is no privity between
The state owes bonds, and has provided a certain system and objects of taxation. Cannot they change these.without impairing the obligation of their contract? By the bonds the city agrees to pay them. If they pay they will have performed their contract. The act of 5th April, 1866, does not touch the contract between the parties. It does not even take away from the city any of the means of payment. It still leaves .all the property of the inhabitants liable to be taken by taxation to pay these bonds. But the answer to the whole question is, that the bondholders have nothing to do by force of the contract with the sources from which the city is to procure the funds to pay with. As to that they stand in the same relation to their creditors as any other debtor. I cannot see that the act of the 5th April, 1866, impairs the obligation of any contract.
But it is next said that the act- of the 5th of April, 1866, was repealed by the act passed on the 11th April, 1866. It. would be a little singular that the legislature, having passed the act of the 5th April, should, six days afterward, repeal it. This act of the 11th April does not, in terms, repeal the act of the 5th of April. But it is said that its thirty-second section does so by necessary implication. This thirty-second section provides that all acts or parts of acts, whether special
This repealing clause, standing alone, might perhaps repeal the act of the 5th of April, 1866. But this thirty-second section, after the clause we have copied above, goes on and excepts from said general repealing clause, such special aud local acis as shall have been approved since the year 1862. Now this act of the 5th of April, 1866, is a special one, and is approved since the year 1862, and so the act of the 5th April, 1866, remains in force. The tax, therefore, against the prosecutor is expressly prohibited by law, and must consequently be set aside.
Cited in State, Gorum, pros., v. Mills, 5 Vr. 181.