Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/174

158 158 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. its twofold object. True, its wide-spread adoption led to some serious abuses, where towns were bonded in aid of railroads, or in a few instances to develop private enterprises; but in the main, the bond itself, as a means of lending capital, has been a blessing alike to the borrower and to all classes of people who sought for their savings a secure investment yielding a good return. The feeling of confidence that constituted these bonds in the true sense of the word " securities " is largely, if not wholly, due to the attitude towards them taken from the beginning by the Supreme Court of the United States. The decisions of this tribunal upon the validity of these bonds, beginning with the Commissioners of Knox County (Indiana) v. Aspinwall, 1 at the December term, 1858, have been numerous. Indeed, there has scarcely been a term of the court down to the present time that has not witnessed the disposition of one or more causes of the kind, until it would seem as though every possible phase of litigation in this regard had been fully explored. It is hardly needful to add that the system thus gradually developed reflects honor upon American jurisprudence. The opinions of the eminent justices have been pronounced in terms clear and un- mistakable ; and so far as such a statement can be made without danger of misapprehension, it is to be said that in cases where the regularity of the issue was contested, the court has steadily tended towards upholding the bond. Upon a few points, such as the want of power to issue, and the like, the justices have from time to time divided ; but to the extent that the rights of a bona fide holder were concerned, or absolute good faith on the part of the nominal debtor required, the views of the court have uniformly been of no uncertain character. Wherever it has found a contract to exist, it has gone to the utmost length to sustain the obligation of it as sacred and inviolable. There* is, and perhaps there always will be, more or less loose talk to be heard through the newspapers in denunciation of " bond- holders," and of the Supreme Court of the United States as favor- ing that class of creditors. As justly might that august body be accused of favoring " plaintiffs," or favoring " defendants." Judges, of course, have human sympathies. Political questions give birth to public opinion more or less intense throughout the community. Public opinion, we freely concede, may not exist without exerting 1 21 Howard, 539.