The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1868-12-31

"and Eid the country of all further agi-
d "tAtioo on their account"
Il Important Decision Of the Supreme
n Court.
d The Supreme Court Of Iowa has re-
II Gently rendered 4 decision relative TO the
H oldand long contested question of the va
y GG;sy Of certain railroad bonds, which is
the more interesting, in as much rs it.
former view of such cases. which is in
direct opposition TO that OF the Supreme
4 Court Of the United States, is re-affirm
cd in this opinion.
The case is thus stated
THE plaintiffs. who are taxpayers Of
Washington county, in Nav, l~on filed
the original bill herein to restrain Owen,
the Treasurer of the county. and Others.
ID from the collection of certain take. for
the payment of Interest on bonds
issued by the officers of the county,
In payment of subscription by the
II county to the capital stock of the Missis-
eippi and Missouri Railroad COMPANY.
This Railroad corporation was made a
party defendant TO the bill The bill
asks the relief of perpetual Injunction
against the defendants, officers of the
county, and others, to restrain them
from the collection of taxes for the paw :
8ment OF said bouds and the interes,
Hthereon, etc, etc.
III The grounds for the relief. rs shown
I in the bill, are irregularity i'm the acts OF
THE officers of the county i'm issuing the
bonds and want of power i'm the county,
under the constitution and laws of the
/ state, 70 issue such obligations. The
cause has been before i'm this court. and
was reversed and remanded back. on
! recount OF defect of parties. and because
j sent. (2l Iowa, 1884,
!. After being remanded, the proper par
\ ties were made defendants Certain
il holders of the bonds of the county,
|. which are the subject of the litigation,
4 made themselves defendants, and an
swered the bill.
I The District Court rendered n decree
Il IN accordance with the prayer of the
]. bill.
|. The defendants. the Mississippi and
4 Missouri Railroad Company, and Du-
Il rant and other bondholders, appeal"
h A lase term of the Federal Court deei.
h led that bonds issued in the same man.
Il der as were those referred TO i'm the case
II sbove stated were valid: and issued
T. Srits of anndcnsrs to compel auti,ori.
l les to levy and collect sufficient taxes TO
lay them. The decision of the Supreme
court OF the State, however, as enunci-
B ted in the opinion prepared 10y Judge
a Beck, affirms the adjudication of the
Il District Court, and pronounces the
\ 40nds void upon the same grounds
Il yhich have been previously taken by
ne Court in similar cases, which are
aerely referred to, a discussion of the
II nlidity of the bonds under the State
" onstitution not being again thought
3ecessary. The reference of the Judge
the conflict which has arisen between
ne State Court aud the Federal Court,
Ii interesting. The following selection
Il POM 1t will give all idea of the position
n hken regarding their relative jurisdic-
4 ION, which is amply sustained by refer
nces:
the supreme Court of the United
III S.as not, in cases of this kind. the
hal afSter. That august tribunal, the
HbOurt of last resort in all cases within
be federal jurisdiction. As prescribed by
be Constitution and laws Of the Union
not charged with the grave duty and
feat power of constructing the Consti
btion and laws OF the States. excen,
there they may be in conflict with tie
federal laws and Constitution, and Of
Establishing thereby a rule of construc.
obligatory upon the State courts.
Questions of this kind it is, la no
6 ->A the final arhiter, but by a cours.
.0dications, beginning at the foun
OF the government, and extend.
Iilg to the present time, it is required to
t,Ok to the courts of the States for the
piles Of construction of their respective
1.tws and Constitutions. Upon such
,Hnestions, then, ii is, in law and in fact,
Inferior in authority to the courts of tn,
! ate: It has the power to disregard
- decisions of the State courts upou
h - questions, and to nforca its own
cenons in class Of cases over which
6ae Jurisdiction. but the superior au.
10y ofi its decisions upon these aues-
- lae not been, and never can be
We cannot, therefore. be ex-
~ conform our rulings TO the
- Of that court upon questions Of
aracter. when they are i'm eontijc,
The adjudications of this court.