, 1869-03-19

By the year teaso seaf) fos the farmers
calling.
We cannot zee how Rural can ret
any profit en- his figures on bad fas1ninR,
IS fl.ls he calls bis net earnings per acre, Ii
be will count the cost Ct fencing. keeping the
up the good condition Of his land. ThapE-
ing "kural' Tor hi. compliments and tur-
ther calculation on the cost Of corn, we
should be pleased TO have his version on
Whea.-raiSiug, and the cost OF fences on
fans. Most respectfully,
Bn,s,o1. H., March Is ises. oNA'' FARMER.
TIE LEE COUNTY, IOWA,
CASE.
s.arament OF Facts n Claimed BY III q
County.
FoHr MADISON, I1Wt Mach II
To TIE Editor OF The :-h,sl2o Tribune:
IEotlce an editorial in your paper OF the
1i,h INST. in reg ard to the litigation coace,u.
Ing the railroad bonds Of this county. That
article does not do the subject justice, rs the
statements thcrei1 arc not In accordance
with the facts OF the case. Viii you not do
the PEOPLE Of lows justice by publlshlug this
communications, so that your re7ders nav be
adviscd Of The true state Of the casey do
not wish to be understood as charging you
With Intentional misstatement Of facts, Your
editorlsl Is evidently based upon the st .te.
ment Of facts as publishet in your paper Of
the 10th Inst, and another Published state.
ment, by the sttorney seainst the county,
which haye now before NE, Il Is ersousous
throughout, both as TO The facts and law.
Let your readers have both sides, and then
Judge. will occupy but brief spsce In
your columns.
The fac's AZ claimed By the people
OF the county sre as follows.
A suit was commenced III Chaucery. I,
1855, tttoIe tho bosads sar< issxd 10 cuto!n pay-
q nent oi them, and the levy aud COLLECTION Of
taxes for that purpose. Ihis suit was IN. n.
tlEued IN cne shape or anothcr until lSG:,.
when fral decree Was rendered bv the Sns
prem:' Court to ptetent tho levY and cotlec-
ton Of taxss for the payment of those bonds,
Thus you see quite different state OF facts
en- thls point trnm the statement OF your
editorial. The pla! :tiH. j. Edgar Tho@p
son. tres 10 make It on: that Ibis va, not
The tame suit ii! the time. but different
spit The people OF the county claim IL was
the same sun. This dispute of fac.s tie
courts must decide. Bat the facts are, that
If there were different suits, the one last
commenced 10 en}oi4 the county from pay
~ the bonds was c1umcnced in tae Stale
Cturt mo1c than two years before the bor1s.
u slls case, were sued on, thus giving the
Stale Court Jurisdiction. i dccrrc was ren
deftd en]oiulnS the county authorities from
paying The bends. she United states
Courts cot regarding tho fact that the State
Courts had Jurisdiction Of the case,
! aud not following the decisions as Ihcy were
! cound to d. BY the Law. q. announced in The
Supreme Cou's It the United States, times
without number, took Jurisdiction Of the
cases. and rendered judgments against th.
county. You will uots that before Lhe suits
were troueht Oh the bonds, the county had
been ent.ired from paying them. Fou say
the last ku't, as jon call II, vas commenced
| sEalLst thu Eonnts Judge, after he was 81.
not thr tact: The eult Was conmenced Ia july,
1850 The 6uIeryisora succrelea the Count :
Judge on the 0rst Monday iu JauuarS. lS6i.
ron, OF course, not being familiar with GU,
statutes, might make such mistake, but tie
attorney Whosc stateneuts 5ou seem 10 fol.
low. being lawyer In Iowa capable of mau.
aging 50 Important suit, ought to be
ashnmcd to publish .nch thing.
You state In your article that the suit was
commenced In July, 1su- Nov anyone, by
page 50, will zee the Supervisors did not
day In January, 1861. The Supervisors. q aflsr
they n:sum.u the management OF county
affairs, defended this INJUNCTION suit,
The fact that The decree vas rendered In tue
slp!,m me Court one term aftcr The cas-. was
tried, Is paraded with great ado. Such things
ute of most common occurrence. Ard ycp
| speak about an injunction granted In lStS
being served Gu The Supervisors 10 1861, n
such met exists: After the rendition Of the
decree the law docs no: require the service ol
40 in5unc' ion. ftu speak about The Lee
County caac hei1 e the first orc In which tht
supreme Court decided the railroad bona.
void. The Lee County suit was probably III
] ~ .-c uonus were de
IN ane ther case, before the decree il our ca:.
! was 1enden d. S"''
i::e point Of contest, 60 far IS the law I;
corcerre,, IL this: The Bosrd al SQncrrisor,
Of Lee Count, have been enJained from lew.
iug sud cclltctitg ta@sss TO pay these bonds
bY q decree Of the supreme Court OF lows,
rendered before auy tuls Q; anT kiud Was con:
Court. That the State Court had jurisd,c.
tioc OF tie subject matter OF the sui. aud
OF Inc parties, no one can ttpy,
40" MARE this, no attempt has been made
by the bonoholdcrs in ary way. by any suit
or rroccedn ID any Of the vsfsous ways It
might be attacked legally, u reyerae, over
rule, Or get aside this decfee, or relieve tie
the ipjui ction.
But. d;ssega1dlrg tho decree of the State
Courts In cuc where they had Jurisdiction,
they sue on the bonds IN the Cniscd States
e urtt-snosc courts take Jurisdiction Of the
chsts. render Jud9mcnts, Issue n1aadamut
and tupriEon the SuperyI=nrs Tor rc,usiEy to
DO The very thing they are cnipised not to do
by the State Courts In case which the
p.ople claim was commenced before the
ho1ca we're Issued, AID which according to
your own statements vas commenced more
than two years before the suits on the bonds
~eEe c-mmec ced. Tour readers viii have
no trouble In understanding this.
fou SAY the bonds are held valid bT 4
great many decisions Ct the Supreme Court
o. iora- lhey; yer: sustained IN three
{, ntlds red THAI these decisions settled
ne question Afier those DECISIONS. unau.
.noas Court has repeatedly decided that
nose * Ids are IN violation Of the State Con.
seNtaaon. Gu: Of thirteen Judges OF the
npou This question, tan have held The bonds
70 be prohibited hy The cuea,{tufIon- xnd ths
Court. NN'1oeu
The rrlted States Supreme Court have s,t
tetn Enar!nous upon the question. In ths
Handanus case os RlsEs ;. Johnson County
Chic! Justice Chase, Sir. Justice Griez ant
MI, Justice Miller held agains, the turisdic.
tlon Of the United States Courts 10 Issue
mandanus to compel collection Of taxes to
pay lhe bouds.
In TIE ha1tas eorpas case before Judge
Rfck, the point decided vas this Tint The
Cni.td States Circuit Court could not, il
] this case. mpr1son the Snperrf:orS for ttfus
| tIg to levy the tax, when the STATE Supreme
| Court had enjolced Them not to MAKE tAt
levy. and The aecrte in that case WAS not r<
rtrAd. aEnnlled or set aside, because the Dc
1 CTGE MAR fEhCfff Il in rnTQnrnrPf h%fy,rs