Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1869-08-25

ton now arises WnetueI luis sta'u'e "
Va, chap. 1881 as construed By the piaintlh
would embarrass the machinery OF the govern
ment. To that question | think there can b
but one answer. The effect OF 1t would bC
in many instances not merely to ,9baraS
hut absolutely TO stop the operation OF tht
government Municipal corporations are part
Of the government They are as much pant
of the government as this Court is, or The
Treasury Department, or the Board Of Publ,
Works. The Legislature once had all the pow
crS of governing the people OF Alexandra thai
are now possessed by the Common Council
! la forming, and becoming a part ot, the State
OF Virginia, the people oil Alexandria gave W
to the people of the whole State the right oil
governing them. That right has never been
resumed, and never can be while Alexandra re-
mains part of the State. The Legislature
still governs the city For its own convenience
and that OF the people Of Alexandria, 1t ha;
| delegated certain OF Its powers to be exercised
| by the corporation, but 1t can at any moment
abolish the corporation and resume the direct
exercise of the delegated powers.
| Every construction OF legislative acts thote,,
| fore, which would inevitably cmbaras- ana
hinder the operation OF the city government,
would, pro hU,to, embarraSs and hinder the op
Grafton of the State government.
Now suppose the taxes OF the city could be
reached by the Judgment creditors Of the cor,
poralou before they became due what would
be Tie result, or, II least, what might b. the
result We see b. these very cases At bar
what III, result would be. Those REVENUES
which, under the State laws, hal been lrsied
for the express, purpose 0i carrying on tLt m
chincry 1T the city government, would ht III
verted from their course, and the city govern
mcnt would he left without revenue.
Ifuc, It might levy another specll ,ax to
provide Tor the payment at ts officers, hui on
the plaintiff ) construction Oi the statute, that
tax, also could BE- levied on BY otl Z creditors,
and the city officers still unpaid. Thus process
would g. on 50 lOng a. there We. creditors Il
the city to be paid.
Nor could city, in all eases coajFy. the
matter Should it ut once levy a tax sufficient
to meet It's whole Indebtedness, the creditors
might not then desire, nor h. willing 10 IL.
ceive, payment and the levy would prove an
incumhrance rather than benefit to the ctty.
In such case the city bonds would, paIhaps, re
main at par, because their payment could al.
ways be enforced, and the creditor might well
determine not to proceed To Judgment, but to
hold ms bombs A. ap investment and collect
their interest. II the clty then desired to clear
itself OF them, other interpretations ot the Leg
islature must be invoked. The city would
thCreupon BE- told. perhaps, that the State
could not interfere to alter the obligations OF
contracts &c, &c, and an intermlnablc cham
ot difficulties and cmbarTasSmcntS would cnguc
Thus whether the creditor proceeded to col.
laGt his debt hy the summary method Of the
statute or whether he chose 10 hold it ~ 4
burden on the city, the latter would tc ham
pcrcd and embarrassed ON all sides.
Nor does it meet the case to say that ii tins
summary and embarrassing process threatened
the corporation ii would no sooner see acr5dltot
recover his judgment than 1t would mmcdatc-
ly raise the tax to pay him-lor the creditor
it 50 disposed, could attach its revenues ard
stop its operations before the special tax could
be laid and collected. 1t the special tax were
partly collected he might not choose to resort
to it. but might, instead, select the funds the
appropriation of which would most annoy and
iuiurc the corporation, as the school fund, or
other special iuuds, and levyupon them where
ever he could find them deposited. 1t Is cvl-
dent that the convenience OF the city would be
entirely at the mercy ct the creditor. How
different from the old remedy 10y mandamus,
which provided tor the Immediate and full pay
ment Of the debt, without putting 1t in the
creditors power to Interfere IN the lca,, de
gree, with he ordinary business of the COZ
poration!
To further illustrate the Inconvenience that
might result from the plaintiff construction OF
this statute, let Us take, for example, the case
where u small city is in debt to the extent OF =
million of dollars, and can barely collect hun
bred thousand per annum to pay us interest
and it, salaries ana running expenses No
sooner las il We'd tlp 100000 taIn ccedl.
tor steps !D;"aI'. a'.. 81. H'~ IT, H'uty. There
is no other judgmcat CO ...o, q, the time, and
. no nft,, m n =
By the time it is fairly laid another creditor has
obtained his judgment and scizeS that also. -
Then another tax must be laid Meanwhile
who is to pay the city officers for lcvying and
attempting to collect the taxes Who would
be found sufficiently public spirited to act as
city official at all under such circumstances
Who would be found ready to 60 through this
operation ten times, rs would be necessary in
order to raise the million of dollars, before he
received a cent OF pay himself? What ii the
operation consumed ten years, as it would if
the city could pay hut $lUO0DO per annum-
who would like to act as city official without
pay during all that long time 1t Is true,
have stated n very extreme case, but not IN I'M
possible nor hardly an improbable one. The law
should guard against even the possibility of
such n case Is it to be presumed that our
Legislature intended to enact a statute which
would render such things not merely possible
but quite probable think not
It'll. In many of the States there have for
years been on the statute books laws providing
for the attachment or seizure. before or after
] Judgment, Of property belonging t. tho debtor
and in the hands oil third parties. and Of
debts due L. him from third parties and the
language of nearly AL these statute Is quite Us
broad and comprehensive Hs that OF chapter
ls3 Of our code-hut do rut remember y sun
gle case where, under such .t;,utes, II creditor
ever attempted t. attach unpaid taxes due to a
municipal corporation, or the ordinary revenues
of tn" corporation, III the hands of the treasurer
or in the place OF his deposit. II such case
ever had arisen, 1 have no douUs tho able and
learned counsel for tho plaintiff would nave
brought i. t. light and giNen "a tho neneht 81 II.
States aud for many years. and Yet surh con-
st--otinn la, not been gwen them Is the strong
est rtuu OF evidence that our own statute Is not
t. DC so construed.
The courts have almost invAi tably HC.d that
even lands in the hands Of municipal IT other
governmental officers and due to tho creditors
OF the municipality or the government, cannot
be levied upon by foreign Attachm6nt on &C
count OF the slight Inconvenience that would
result in settling tho accounts Of such officers
and ia occasionally requiring then absence foI
a hort time irola their business. How mu,h
mare Imperative the necessity of rIeyentiuA
the whole revenues Of municipality OF = gov
arr,nept {, IN being swallowed nm Aii lis husi-