LONO V. ans of nbw london. 566 �which was named, "for such sum, or sutns, at auch rate of in- terest, transferable by general or special indorsement, or by delivery, and in such manner as may be agreed upon by and between the directors of said railway company and theproper officcrs of such * * * incorporated city or village." We are of the opinion that when it was thus provided that the issue of bonds should be in such sum or sums as should be agreed on between the company and the officers of the village, and when the object, to promote which bonds were authorized to be isBued, was specified, and the whole founded on a prior vote by the people, the constitutional requirement was satis- fied. It must be presumed that the of&cers of the munici- pality would be competent judges of the amount of bonded indebtedness which the town or village ought to incur. And when the amount is by the act made subject to the concur- rence and eontrol of the representatives of the munieipality, such a restriction is imposed as constitutes a compliance with the constitutional provision. It may not be a restric- tion that would as effectually prevent abuse in ; contracting. debts as would a provision expressly fixing a Bum that should; not be exceeded, but the eharacter of the restriction is a ques-, tien not for the courts but for the legislature. �Cases bearing on the question are Maloy v. City of Marietta, 11 Ohio St. 636, and The People v. Mahaney, 1 3 Mich, 481., The constitutions of Ohio and Michigan contain clauses sim- ilar to that in the constitution of this state, and now under consideration. In the case first cited the court say: "The constitution clearly imposes a duty upon the legislature, but does not direct when or how it shall be exercised. Speaking of this provision, and the duty thereby enjoined, Judge Ean- ney, in Hill v. Higdon, 5 Ohio St. 248, says : 'A failure to per- formt his duty may be of very serions import, but lays no foundation for judicial correction.* Be this as it may, the sec- tion, while it imposes the duty, leaves to the legislature the power to determine the mode and manner of the restriction to be imposed." This was a case involving the validity of a stat- ute which authorized an assessment of the cost of improving a street upon abutting lots ; and it was held that a restriction ����
