Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-08-02

TO show il was, the court canrct sustain the petit
ton. They sue as individual tax payers and
rot in common. and ii they are wrong the in
junction cannot live. They cannot ask this as
individuals, hut must show that the parties are
about "a commit wrong a. they aledge, and
that this wrong is to fall on al the tax payers.
An individual party cannot obtain an inJunc-
ton. but the bill must express that these par
ties not only sue in their own behalf, but
for all similarly situated. He cited authorities
in support of this view OF the case otherwise the
court NAV be constantly called upon to investi-
gate ike complaints. No such bill as the one
now before us will Justify the court in LAYING an
injunction. Bat were
THIS Fatal DEFECT
remedied IN the bill. there SUN ciep. FRO
for the support OF it. The total asse ssm5 ts f
property given in compliments bin rerraSented
only dollar as representedin mis- h n 10 tbirt
dollars not represented in II there fore tn, u
not Tt present the common ,1.ta~, Il r. ''NSt
the party entirely whic,r might claim to be the
most Int.[ssieu. nalne. s: The District of Column
ora, when Is the Zeal party which issues the
BONDS compiained Of. In this bill no allusion is
made 10 any one but their own individual selves,
MhO are 70 sc injured by excessive taxation.
Ihere i no pbiianthrOpic impulse shown in any
part Oh me bill as regards the interests of the
community, but all reference of injury is 20
themselves; and all is
4 MEEE TISSUE OF APPREHENDED INJURY!
IL Is visible 70 Ali that sefshness predomnates
throughout the entire scheme to stop progress in
our District. He would proceed to fight this
scheme. and would commence 70 do so from the
State Of New York; from which authorities he
| proceeded to cite, and other State reports, in
support of his argument. He claimed that by
| allowing this injunction would be inflicted a
| more irreparahle injury TO the public than by
denying it, as it would
| BLOCK THE WHEELS OF PROGRESS,
and force us back into the old state of iethargy.
| One of the grounds of complaint is the multi
plicity of suits which would be likely to arise
| from bondholders; but are these parties named
in the bill likely TO sustain injury by such suits.
| Would n suit at law, brought by one of them, IN
| any way effect the Others or any one of them?
| This does not appear at all plain. As indiyid-
uals they have their rights at law but not in the
manner sought-thrOugh little clique claiming
| To he large Taxpayers.
| No action OF this character can be based on
| apprehended injury, but when il is shown to be
| sustained, then a remedial process may be re-
sorted TO in proper and legal manner. This bill
| cannot be sustained because of its purpose,
l which is opposed to equity and law. He cited
| the case of the Union National Bank against the
city of Chicago as analogous 10 this, but in
| which the points were much more fOrcibly shown,
| and which had been denied by the Supreme
Court of that State
| No injunction was granted because II could
not be shown that any case of irreparable injury
would be sustained, or that a multiplicity of
suits would arise by its denial. This bill does not
set forth or allege that such suitS are likely to
| arise, or that an rreparable injury is to follow
| the issue of the bonds to the public.
| Mr.. Cook was speaking when our report closed.