Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-10-23
THE 100000 BILL In COURT.
DISTRICT I.,YJ.N-CTFe.,' CzsE.
Appeal from Judge wyiie.
Darts ct al. asf. Cooke ct al.

In the Supreme Court in General Term, this
morning, the above case was called, 1t having
been appealed from Judge Wylie last August,
when an injunction was granted restraining the
officers of the District of Columbia from issuing
the improvement bonds.
Mr.. W. s. Cox stated that one OF the grounds
of the decision below was that the amount of
bonds proposed to be issued was In excess of the
Limit prescribed by the organic act without sub
mission to a vote of the people; that subsequent
TO injunction similar law had been passed with
provision that il be submitted to the people.
He called attention to the fact that If the new
law receives the approval of the people and the
injunction in this case should be dissolved there
would DC two loans OF four million each author
lied, and IT certainly was not intended by the
Legislature that both laws should remain in
force. He submitted, therefore, that this case
might so over until after the election.
After Mr.. Cox had read the act and the court
had consolidated
Chief Justice Cartier said 60 We understand
the suggestion now made TO be in the nature Of a
motion to POSTPONE the hearing upon the body Of
this issue until after the government has taken
the advice of the electors of this district as to
whether they will authorize 1t, inasmuch as in
one event that advice would control some of the
principal features of the bill of complaint. The
court, after consultation upon the subject of
whether they will hear this motion distinct from
the consideration OF the entire case, have coma
to the conclusion that they will, with view OF
ascertaining what this second legislation is, and
how far II entered into the change of the condi-
ton OF things that supervened the granting Of
the Injunction, and with view Of being advised
as to the necessity in the heel of the term re-
viewing the whole case before the people shall
have expressed their opinion by vote"
MIR. Cook stated he was ready for the argu-
ment, and Judge Cartier directed the argument
TO go On with the understanding that 1t would be
but preliminary.
Mr. Cook, after stating that he had not been
furnished with notice Of the motion, argued
that the two acts were entirely distinct
Mr.. Cushing followed, arguing that the second
act did not admit the illegaity of the first act,
but was contingent to raise funds in case the
District was left without resources. He urged
that the court should not postpone as it would
virtually continue the injunction.
Mr.. Durant, for the compliments, after
noticing the legislative proceedings and briefly
reciting what had taken place in the courts,
argued that the act of August 10th was the same
substantially as that OF July 10th, with the adj
ditional provision for submitting the question TO
the people, and IL merely supercedes the first.
The people, he submitted, were not aware that
in voting for the act they would give the gov
eminent eight millions. He further argued that
it was an absolute admission on the part OF the
Legislature that they were wrong. He claimed
that the second act was tantamOunt 10 a repeal
Judge Macarthur asked if he regarded the
second act as law.
Mr.. Durant said it was of no force until ma
jority of the people assented thereto. He sub
vain.
Judge Cartier said the counsel could prepare
to argue the case, and recess was taken.
THE BRIEF OF THE APPELLANTS
the District ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by Messrs.
w. A. Cook, Caleb Cushing, 5. l.. Phillips, and
n. Wilson raises the following points list. The
compliments set forth in the first paragraph of
their bill that they eiseas Of, and residents
ia, his District, and are " property-ouners and
tdz,pdyers" therein, owning a large amount of
their ndridDGi naHes and not snd ON IN
behalf of themselves and others similarly inter-
ested-" The bill is, therefore, defective as re-
spects its parties. Demurrers are filed because
OF the omission of the District of Columbia As a
party, misjoinder OF compliments, and unites as
defendants the Governor as such and president
er otFcio of the Board of Public Works and com
bines with him T.. L. Stanton, George E. Baker
and the Board of Public Works, each of whose
interests or connection with the subject matter
Of the bill is distinct.
I'd. The court has not Jurisdiction or power
TO restrain the defendants. Because Of the char
dcter Of The District government and TIE nature of
ne duties Of he officers sought to be eEjoined. The
government is political sovereignty or quasi
political sovereignty. Because Of the character
and purpose Of the BIZ. The bill cannot be sus-
tanned, because court Of equity will not inter-
iere TO restrain subordinate tribunal of special
jurisdiction upon the ground that 1t has exceed
ed, or threatens to exceed, its powers as defined
by law.
Sd. The assessment or collection of an illegal
tax, and OF consequence the issue of illegal
bonds, will not be interfered with by court of
equity.
4th. The essential allegations of the bill do not
appear to be made upon personal knowledge
but upon information and belief. From their
character, this is the fact All of these allega-
by any proof. The answer, therefore, must be
regarded as true.
9Th. The alleged wrongs of the bill are too
remote and contingent to justify in any aspect
9th. The debt, which is standard of determi-
nation, or which must control the amount of in
debtedness which may be incurred by the Dis
trict of Columbia, is the Indebtedness of the
new government, without regard TO the liabil-
tiles of the old corporations OF Washington,
Georgetown and the Levy Court.
Ia. m Mt To train he
OF the bonds on the assumption that the indebt-
edness Of these antecedent corporations consti-
tutes part OF the Indebtedness of the govern
ment of the District of Columbia. This cannot
be done. IL this be not so, there is no ground
whatever for sustaining the bill.
sth. Even If the Indebtedness OF the old cor
poratons should be included as a part of the
liabilities Of the new government, bonds could
be issued to the extent of $3.50 1892, or at the
lowest, $3.50 744.72. If the property assessed for
licenses be estimated, the first would be the true
amount. IL excluded, the latter would be the
correct sum; II being the amount of the ordinary
assessments above the indebtedness of the old
governments OF the District, well as the new
ayerments of the answer The Injunction how
ever, without regard to these facts, was allowed
IN reference not only to the entire Indebtedness
OF the old corporations and of the new govern
ment, but beyond even this .agRregate indeht-
edness," so as to include the amounts mentioned
which were in excess of all indebtedness.
9Th. The title OF the bill clearly and stuff ciently
indicates It's subject. Its general object is set
forth, as well as the incidents of it, and whatever
may be omitted is subordinate TO the general
design of the act, and need not be mentioned in
IL.
10th. Considered as respects the parties, the
question OF jurisdiction, the exact and important
rules OF pleading, purpose of the bill is INSULT
Gent to justify the decree of the court below.
and said decree should be reversed.
THE BRIEF OF APPELLEEs
Davis ct al, represented by Messrs. j. j.
COMBS, A. G.. Riddle, W. s. Cox and T. j. Du-
rant, state that they viii rely on the following
points:
LIST. The " District of Columbia" is a body
corporate for municipal purposes, which NAV
sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded and
exercise all other powers OF a municipal corpo-
ration not inconsistent with the Constitution and
laws Of the United States and the act OF its Gre
alton.
I'd. Municipal corporations, like all others,
have no other powers than those specially con-
ferred upon them, and all exercise of power in
excess of this is null and void in law.
Sd. The taxing power of this corporation Is
limited 10 two per cent. on the assessed value of
property in the District, and corporation can
not tax beyond the rate prescribed in its charter
ith Objections to the form Of the act Of the
legislative Assembly of the District of Column
bla; OF July 10, ISL, and appearing on the face
of the act itself. O
oth: objections to the substance of the act of
the Legislative Assembly of the District of
Columbia OF July 10, ISL, appearing on the face