State of Arkansas vs. Little Rock, Mississippi River and Texas R'y Co.
In the case of The City of St. Louis v. Alexander et al., 23 Mo., 483, where a vote was taken and subscription made to the stock of a railroad company, by the county of St. Louis, during the time which intervened between tbe passage of the act, and the time when it went into effect, it was insisted that the subscription was legal; but the court said (a full bench not being present): "It was, in our opinion, illegal for the County Court to subscribe for stock under this act without taking the previous necessary step, to present the question to the voters of the county; and the act must be in force before such step could lawfully be taken."
In the cases above cited, all the material questions presented in the case now under consideration were brought in review. They all hold, that a vote of the people, expressive of their assent to be taxed, must be taken under authority of law, before the legislature can enact a valid law to bind the people of the State to pay debts contracted under it.
Our Constitution expressly denies that the credit of the State shall ever be loaned for any purpose, without the consent of the people thereto expressed at the ballot box. The right to legislate upon the subject is dependent upon this consent, as a condition precedent to its exercise. The Constitution, in this respect, as in most others, is a limitation upon legislative power. Without providing any mode of ascertaining the popular will, it cannot execute itself, nor can the people, in their sovereign capacity, assemble and make a declaration of assent, because, under all the several departments to which the powers of government are distribuated, the meana of giving effect to them are required to be under the sanction of law. So distinctly held in the case above cited.
Mr. Justice Wagner, in the case of St. Joe Railroad v. Buchanan County Court, remarked that: "The Constitution, except when special provision is made for that purpose, does not
