Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/270

258 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The opinion of the supretiie court referred to was rendered in the case of the State of Missouri ex rel. v. Chappell, State Treasurer, which was instituted at the relation of the complainants herein, at the October term, 1881, of said court, asking said court to compel the state treasurer by mandamits to exe- cute his certiflcate in conformity to said act of 1865. �It appears that the supreme court of Missouri refused to grant the man- damits, on the ground that said act of 1865 was repealed, as conteiided, by the constitution of 1875 ; but it also appears that the question of the vaiidity of said act was not raised in said case, either by the pleading or the argument of counsel, and that the only question submitted to the court was as to whether or not the conditions of the ai't had been fully complied with. �The defendant f urtlier conteuded that the terms of said act of 1865 had not been complied with. �Geo. W. Easley, for complainanta. �John T. DUlon, Elihii Root, and Wagner Swayne, of counse!. �B. H. Mcintyre, Atty. Gen., for defendant. �Glover & Skepley and Heiiderson e Skields, of counsel. �In answer to an inquiry at the close of the argument by Mr. Glover, as to when the motion would be decided, Miller, Justice, said : �We will decide it now, because all three of us are agreed upon so much as is necessary to enable us to make an order refusing this application for an injunction. When that is done, the case remains, anyhow, as it is not here for final decision, and what may come of it hereafter wiil be seen. The reason why I say we are all agreed that the application for this injunction cannot be sustained is that we do not agree with the complainants' construction of the act of 1865. Looking at the language of the second and third sections of that act, which contain the operative words of the statute, and looking at it with a view to the nicest criticism upon the words themselves, before referring back to the prior legislation and to the general circum- stances, we are of opinion that it does not justify the claim of the complainants. The part of the second section which it is necessary to consider reads thus: "Whenever the trustees provided for in the first section of this act shall pay into the treasury of the state a sum of money equal in amount to all indebtedness due or owing by said com- pany to the state, and all liabilities incurred by the state by reason of having issued her bonds and loaned the same to said company as a loan of the credit of the state, together with all interest that has, and may at the time when such payment shall be made have, accrued and remain unpaid by said company, and such fact shall have been ��� �