Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1869-03-31
TIE LEE 0oUETy, I0TA CASE.

/ ASt-e21J
! FoRF MADISON, Iowa, March Is.
To the Editor of The Chicago Tribune
! I notice an editorial in your paper ofthe
18th inst. in regard to the litigation con
| corning the railroad bonds Of this county.
That article does not do The subject justice,
as the statements therein are not in ac-
cordance with the facts Of the case. Will
you not do the people of Iowa justice by
I publishing this communication, SO that
your readers may be advised OF the true.
state of the case? | do not wish to be
understood as charging you with inten-
/ tional mistatement of facts. Your edito-
rails evidently based upon the statement
of facts as published in your paper OF the
10Th inst, and another published state
ment. by the attorn y againstthe county,
which / have now before me. 1t is erro-
neous throughout, both as to the facts and
law. Let your readers have both sides,
and then Judge. / will occupy but a
brief space in your columns.
The facts as claimed by the people of
the county are as follows: ,g95
/ A suit was commenced in Chancery, in
/ 1856, before the bonds a0ere issued to- en-
/ join payment of them, and the levy and
/ collection of taxes for that purpose. This
suit was continued in one shape or another
uutil 1868, when a final decree was rem
dered by the Supreme Court to prevent
levy and collection of taxes for the pay
ment Of those bonds, Thus we see quite
a different state facts on this point from
the statement of your editorial. The
/ plaintiff, j. Edgar Thompson, tries to
make it cut that this was not the same
4 suit all hetime, but a different suit; the
people of the county claim it was the
same suit. This dispute of facts the courts
/ must decide. But the facts are. that if
there were different suits, the one last
commenced to enjoin the county from
! paying the bonds was commenced in the
/ 5 tate Court more than two years before
the bonds, IN this case, were sued on thus
giving the State Court Jurisdiction. A
decree was rendered enjoning the county
authorities from paying the the bonds.
The United States Courts not regarding
the fact that the State Courts had iuris.
dlctlon OF the case, and not following the
decisions as they were bound to do by the
! law, as announced in the Supreme Court
OF the United States, times without num-
Der, took Jurisdiction of The cases. and
rendered Judgments against the county.
You will note that before the suits were
brought on the bonds the county had
been enjoined from paying them You
say the last suit, as you call it, was com
/ menced against the County Judge, after
F he was superseded by the Board of Su-
/ perrisors. That is not the fact The suit
was commenced in July, 1860 The Su-
/ perVisors succeeded the County Judge on
the first Monday in January, 1861
You, of course, not being familiar with
our statutes, might make sren mistake,
but the attorney whose statements you
seem to follow, being lawyer in Iowa
capable OF managing so important suit,
ought to be ashamed to publish sush a
4 thing. Ela. .5Ham5w eHaz ars
i You state in your article that the suit
was commenced in, July, 1860. Nowany-
one, by reference to Iowa Revision Sec
ton 324, page 80, will see the Supervisors
did not succeed the County Judge until
the first Monday in january, 1861 The
Supervisors, after they assumed the man
agement of county affairs, defended the in
i junction suit. The fact that the decree
was rendered in the Supreme Court one
term after the case was tried, is paraded
! with gread ado. Such things are of most
common occurrence. And You speak about
an injunction granted in 1868 being serv-
ed ON the supervisors in 1864. No such
fact exists. After the rendition of the
/ decree the law does not require the service
OF an injunction. You speak about the
! Lee County case being the first one in
which the Supreme Court decided the
railroad bonds void. The Lee County
suit was probably the first one commenced,
/ but the bonds were decided unconstitu.
tlonal by unanimous court, in another
case, before therdecree in our case was
4 rendered. eaz TO- 5-srsafa 1aa aF
The point of contest SO far as the law
IS concerned, is this : The Board of Su-
i perVIsorsf of Lee County have been en-
joined from levying and collecting taxes
| to pay these bonds, by decree of the
Supreme Court of Iowa, rendered before
any suit of any kind was commenced on
the bonds, in the United States Court.
That the State Court had jurisdiction of
the subject matter of the suit, and of the
parties. no one can deny. saglaas 1a4
/ Now mark this, no attempt has been
made by the bondholders in any way, by
any suit or proceeding in any of the va.
rious ways it might be attacked, legally,
to reverse, -overule, or set aside this decree,
or relieve the Board of Supervisors from
the operation of the injunction. =
But, disregarding the decree of the
State Courts in case where they had
jurisdiction, they sue or the bonds in the
United States Courts-those courts take
jurisdiction of the cases, render iudg.
ments. issue mandan,us and imprison the
Supervisors for refusing to do the very
thing they are enjoined not to do by the
State Courts in a case which the people
claim was commenced before the bonds
were issued, and which according to your
own statements was commenced more than
TWO years before the suits ON the bonds
4 were commenced. Your readers will have
no trouble in understanding this.
/ You say tho bonds are held valid by a
great many decisions of the Supreme
| Court Of Iowa. They were sustained in
/ three cases hv = dividad Horr+ NJ IT,