Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1869-01-08
STATE VS.. FEDERAL COURTS.
Important to Supervisors

From the Journal ws learn that the Board
Of Supervisors Of Museatins county have
been summoned a. body before the Dis
trlct Court, new in session in Msscatins, t.
answer 10 charge Of contempt Of the
csurt, bv disrsgarding an injunction issued
in 1862, on the petition Of Vincent Cham
bsrs, james l.. Hsusted, A. Smallsy and
other tax payers, restraining tho Board fer
ever from lsvying . tax 10 pay either inter
est or principal Of certain bends illegally
issued for railroad purposes. The mem
bers Of the Beard were all arraignsd inside
the bar, whom Thos. Hanna, their attorney,
proc esded to answer for them BY reciting
their ao,ien in the premises. Showing that
they had been served with . writ frsn the
United States Circuit Court. commanding
them t. levy such tax that in answer TO
said writ they had made return 10 the effect
that the general tax levied Was sufficient
fer srdinsry purpssss. asd else 70 pay the
judgment then impending; that the United
States Cireuit Ceust bad ruled this answer
insufficient, asd had issued . ssssnd writ,
psrsmptory in character. commanding
special levy Of tax TO pay the judgment.
and holding each member Of the Beard in
dividually responsible far its action.
Ar. Cload, on behalf Of NJ. AcNutt, the
| petitioner, replied thst the answer vas No
answer at all. The Beard offered ~ excuse
for haviog indirectly violated the injunction
| Of this court by lsvying . general tax, .
part Of which they prepesed - appropriats
| 10 the pay msnt Of interest on the bonds
No actisn taken il the United States Cir
cult Court 10 an answer in this court He
asked, therefore, that the members sf the
Beard bs required 70 answsr specifically
nov Or be held to answsr % sems future
time.
Mr. Hanna responded to the sffsst that
the Beard could net esnscisntisssly make
such an answer - would entirely purge
them frsm centsopt Of this Court, and they
had thoughtit best to submit % their
answer . statement Of What they had been
required to Dc BY the United States Court
and what aotisn they had taken in the
premises. He disavswsd any intention on
the part Of the Beard to show contempt for
this Court.
Mr.. Cloud. in his closing rsmasks. said Il
vas not the disposition Of any one to rusish
the members Of the Beard. He held that
the levy sf sudaeisnt gsnsral tax . pay the
judgment Of the rslator was . violation ei
the injuaetisu Of THE Ceurt. II makes ne
difference whether the levy ef tax was
direct Or indirect.
Mr.. Riehman. 10 passing judgment refer.
red to The conflict between the State and
Federal Courts as unfortunate. and
remarked that whore there 10 concurrent
Jurisdiction sas Court has a. much autheri
y ~ another. He held the answer Of the
Beard ~ insufficient, and while hs believed
ne contempt was intended, he believed il
his duty to held each member to hsii in the
sum Of one thsusard dollars to appear q
the next term sf the Court and 70 preserve
strict obedience Of the Injunction Of thia
Court asainst levying tai 10 pay the
railresd bonds.
Thus the matter rests. The member ol
the B ,ard are un Ter bonds 20 the Usitsd
States Circuit Court in the sem Of $500
each to do what the District Ceurt cen.
mands them net 70 do under penalty u
q, 900.