Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-08-03
THE INJUNCTION CASE.
Continuation Of the PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. Cook Concludes his Argument.
Argument of Mr. CoOmbs for Petit.
fiOnerN.
MIR. wilson for Defendants.
Yesterday, after our report Closed

yesterday, after our report closed
MT OcOk continued his argument, saying taat
where the parties interested are numerous and
the suit Is for an object common to them n IL Is
established that some Of the body maints in hill
In behalf of themselves and Of the o. hers. and
such bill must be distinctly stated 20 be on be-
nan OF the plaintiff and OF the 9th CT persons in
terested, so that they come in Under the plea.
MI. Cook cited numerous aut aorities ON this
punt, and continuing, asked: What, then. Is be-
fore your Honor? Abill fle.i in direct disregard
name Of individuals, a bill without the essential
ahd important words, ',for and on behalf Of all
nmatdTty situated or Interested" Ii cannot,
=, srd justify the granting Of an Injunction
MOu,' be trespassing upon your Honor's time
wou ID cite cite cases in the court OF the United
Sp tes-the Supreme Court; but even
The Court-I should be very glad to have
Special reference TO the Supreme Court decision.
Mr.. Cookies, your Honor, viii hand them
to you.
other side would like TO have them.
Mr.. COok--I will furnish them to them also.
Mr.. Cook then referred to several such cases
in support of his position. II this bill were cor
rect as regards the parties- e., IL 1t were in the
name of one or more individuals, and had in it
the important words "for and ON behalf of all
others similarly interested" would it even then
justify this solicited injunction? 1t is an err
TOneons conception that the bringing of suit in
the name of an individual for and on behalf of
himself and others will invariably sustain an in
junction.
Several authorities were cited by Mr.. Cook in
support of this part of his argument. Continu-
ing, he said, that a practice has been adopted
ny courts OF Cnancery, OF permitting one or
similar interests; but it Is not to be considered
general principle, and in order to enable a
plaintiff to sue on behalf Of himself and others
who stand in the same relation with him TO the
subject of the suit ii must appear that the relief
sought by him Is in its nature beneficial to all
those whom he undertakes 10 represent. Where
hot dos %rNsx.
entertained. He has been unable to find any
case where the plaintiff complained only of acts
which were within the sound discretion of pub
lie officers, or a question of policy, or regula-
tons by such officers, that one or more, repre-
senting himself and others, has been recognized
as a proper plaintiff to q bin. There may be
presented by counsel, nor discovered by the
court. Now, this rule penetrates deeper into
the equity of this case, considered I'm connection
with It's parties than the authorities cited to
tain the position that individual taxpayers can
not maintain a bill in their own name, and ere
the importance of referring to the individual
tax paid by these parties, and the relation they
bear to others becomes manifest.
MI. Cook here presented a statement showing
the aggregat amount of that interest received
in connection with that Of the entire communi-
ty, as follows:
Total assessment as given in compliments,
bill, ST ,19I &c. 81; 1G510OO per cent assessed
against taxpayers represented in compliments
bill, s2,3% ,Z55-5a; assessed against ax-payers
not represented in complainants' bill, SI4 I9i,-
11O.e2-one dollar of taxable property repre-
sented by complanants to $50 Of taxable prop
erty not represented.
Corrected assessment of real and personal
property, S7s, $50 ,S74-51; s96-1OOO per cent as
sessed against taxpayers represented in COM
plainants' bill, 2,3S 1855; assessed against
taxpayers not represented in complainants'
BILL S77 COO, 3s.s2-One dollar of taxable prop
erty represented by complainants to S34 of tax
able property not represented.
Real total assessment of real and personal
sessed against taxpayers represented in COM
plainants' bill, 50 ,3T 1855; assessed against
BILL SIS, 80, S3s s2-one dollar of taxable prop
erty represented by complainants to S35 Of tax
able property not represented.
Now TO sustain the bill, If il was, in the name
pear that the purpose of 1t, if accomplished,
would be of general benefit. And this, in the
end, originates two questions, whether the nom
payment of which may be assessed against the
vantage to the public? And the answer must
bet would not be. Second, whether the nom
payment OF the taxes which may be assessed in the
event of the issuing bonds, would be OF general
benefit? 1t, in fact, comes to this-Is it disad-
yantageous, injurious to the public to carry on
the Improvements for which the appropriation
OF 81 600 goo has been made, and for which il is
proposed to issue the bonds? If IL is not, then
how can the bill be sustained? The question of
the sufhcieDcy of parties is fully raised in the
demurTers which had been filed in this case,
The COurt--The points raised?
Mr.. Cookies; fully raised, your Honor.
While the complainants are improperly united
in view of their separate interests, too are the
defendants. The duties aud interests of the Gov
ernOr, Secretary, and Comptroller in relation 10
the bonds are distinct. They alone sign them
The Governor alone can sell them: the Comp
troller issues them. The interest of the Board of
Public Works is in the use of the proceeds; they
have no common interest in the matter with the
others. And there is no reason whatever for
charging the board with any act IN relation to
the bonds. They are in this respect improperly
combined with the Governor, the Secretary and
Comptroller. The bill is therefore defective in
this particular. Moreover, the bill omits a most
essential party-that party is the District of Co.
lumbia- In the fifth section of ''The Improve
ment Billp the Governor is authorized, in be-
half OF the District of Columbia, to issue regis
tered bonds. The District is not made a party
to this suit. The District of Columbia is the
real party in interest, and the party which should
OF Columbia which authorized the appropriation
and permits the issuing Of the bonds. The only
parties before the court are the mere agents of
that District. The bill Is so defective in regard
TO parties that IL cannot be sustained.
Mr.. Cook then entered ON a full analysis of the
bill TO show that its real object was to prevent
the ultimate collection of taxes, and Of improve
ments, &c.
Proceedings To-day.
Mr.. Cook resumed his argument this morning,
contendDg that the affidayits of Messrs. Riggs
Plant and Hume are not contradictory of the
Governors reply to the bill, inasmuch as the
conditional in its character. He argued that
the charges in the bill do not rise above an ap-
prehensiOn or an expressed belief that injury Is
70 follow in the issue of these bonds, and when
THESE IMAGINARY EVILS
are exploded there is not a fo0t-hold left of an
excuse for the injunction prayed for. The con
solidaticn of the old corporations form an entire
new government, and the debts of the old are not
TO be considered as part of the debts of the new
The debt referred 10 in the organic act refers
throughout to the debt of the new government
and the assessments to the new valuation of
property yet 10 be made. Congress itself separ-
ates these debts and valuations by the language
OF the organic act The new government Is au-
thoriZed to assess taxes especially for
THE IIQUIDATI0N OF THESE OLD DEBTS,
and such taxes cannot be applied for any other
purpose. The old obligations are to be paid by
the property holders within the Jurisdictions Of
the old corporations respectively, nor are those
OF one Of them to be held for any other-each
paying its own obligations. Why fasten upon
this new government the incubus of debt created
by the old one, to blight its usefulness from its
birth. Mr.. Cook then went on to explain the
provisions Of the ordinances passed by the Legis-
lature for the new assessment
Judge Wylie.-''Mr. Cook, what Is the assessed
value OF the personal property in the District ?"
Mr.. Cook-" 81 ,3G ,i75."
He then explained that the tenor OF the bill OF
oe compliments Is mandatory as to the issuing
Of the bonds, but showed that instead of being
in its terms. the bin passed Is per-
missive, and left
DISCRETIONARY WITH THE GOVERNOR,
and your Honor Is called upon to control the
discretion of An executive Officer in the exercfxe