romrxms v. LITTLE nom: ar rr. s. M. 17
of railroad commissioners to inspect the roads and see that the state #
aid was being applied in the manner required by the act; and if any
road was not so applying it the board was required to indicate that
fact to the governor, whose duty it then was to suspend the further
issue of bonds to such company until the next meeting of the legisla-
ture, when the facts were to be reported to that body for itsbonsider-
ation. This provisionshows, quite conclusively, that the board had
no power to revoke or suspend an award of aid once made, and that
the governor not only had no power to refuse, at his discretion, to issue
bonds after the award of aid, butthat he could not, on his own- mo-
tion, suspend the issue of bonds for the misuse of the 'bondsprevi-
ously issued. The act embodied a policy, carefully matured by the
legislature;forideveloping the resources of thestate, by promoting the
construction of important lines of railroad by the loan ofthe state’s
credit, and it was contemplated that it should receive the sanction
of the people of the state at theballot-box. ‘   ‘ , — i ’» · ~
It would be singular indeed if, after such a measure had received
the sanction of thalegislature and the approval of the people at the
ballot-box, the act had put it inthe power of a single oiiicer of the
state to defeat both the legislative and the popular will at hisdiscre-
tion. A careful reading of the act gives evidence of a settled inten-
tion *on the part of the legislature not to investthe governorwith any
discretion in the premises. " h
The amount for which the state might acquire a lien, under the
award, was fixed and definite ;‘·it was for the sum of $10,000 per
mile for 150 miles.
The validity of a mortgage or lien, for advances to be made to the
mortgagor, was never doubted merely because it contained no cove-
nant making it obligatory on the mortgagor to apply for andreceive
the maximum sum agreed to be advanced, by the mortgagee. Whether
the company might have declined to file the requisite papers and take
the bonds, after applying for and receiving the award, is an imma-
terial question. The essential question is, whether, by the award of _
the commisioners, the company had in its power to compel the state
to make the loan; or, in other words, whether the company could,
without further negotiations with the state, make it the legal duty of
the governor to issue the bonds. It not only could do this, but it
actually did do it. It does not, therefore, affect the validity of such
a lien or mortgage, or in any manner impair its efficacy as against -
subsequent incumbrances, that themortgagor is required to show in
v.15,no.1——2 »