Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-11-11
JUDGE wYLIE's INJUNCTION NV.
SOLVED.
THE $4,000, 900 BILL ALAw.
Judge Carriers Opinion.
Judge Macarthur on the Substance
and Law or the Record.
Judge Humphreys ON the Objects Of
Writs Of Injunction, etc
Judges wyIie and 0Iin Disse mt from
the Majority.

court, this morning, Chief Justice Cart
Ter delivered the decision oS the Court
dissoIying the injunction and dismissing the bill
IN the case of Davis z! al. against Cooke ct al,
commonly Known as the improvements loan
Injunction easel The following is the decision:
Opinion Of Chief Justice ID. X. Cartier.
While the controversy in this case embraces
grave and interesting questions, ably and elab-
Orately discussed, the Importance of the issue is
practically essened in the fact that the political
has wisely referred the subject to the people
thereby defeIring their ultimate action to the
Popular determination. 1t Is, nevertheless here
TO be disposed OF and We will proceed to treat it
as a living question.
1t viii be seen by reference to the bill, answers,
and demurrers in this case, that the central and
controlling subject of consideration is to be found
IN the issue, whether the loan authorized and
the Indebtedness proposed to be contracted in the
act of the Territorial government, of July 10, IL
Is in excess Of the authority OF the Territorial
government established by the organic law of
the District 1t is charged in the bin that il is
and by the answers and demurrers, in different
Whether in excess of authority or otherwise
Is again made to depend upon the relation of
the Indebtedness of the anteeedent governments
within the District, TO the Indebtedness OF the
District.
III the Indebtedness OF the corporations of the
cities OF Washington and Georgetown, and the
Levy Court, are by the act of Territorial organ
izatiOn brought forward and engrafted upon the
government of the District of Columbia to swell
ITS aggregate debt in such wise as to make the
District OF Columbia, as a whole, debtor to the
creditors of these several corporations il follows
that the loan authorized, and in process of con-
summation, Is hey Ond the limitatiOrs of the or
ganic act, and ultra rires.
If, on the other hand, the several indebted
ness of these several corporations remain the
several Indebtedness of the people and property
OF the corporations, not having been legally
transferred to the shoulders OF the present gov
eminent, the ~ 900 900 loan, authorized by said
act, and in process of negotiation, is within the
m ions nr r4nW.f.a louu 49,
are made to follow upon the estimated valuation
OF the property Of the District, as conceded in
the argument.
Has Congress, therefore, by the organic act of
the District, or otherwise, imposed this intiebt-
eCness upon the District? The first answer to
this question is to be found in an utter wanS of
constitutional power to do il. The Constitution
does provide that the property of the private
citizen may be taken for public use upon fair
compensation therefor, but in no principle or
passage OF the Constitution does the authority
exist TO transfer the property of one private cit
Izen 10 another without his consent or to trans
Ter the legal burdens of one citizen to another
without his consent And, what is true of nat
ural persons Is equally true of corporate persons
The search will he made in vain to find consti-
tEtional authority BY which one corporate body.
without its consent, can be made to bear the
burden of another.
From this manifest want of authority to do il.
II may be reasonably inferred that Congress did
not undertake TO do it. That they did not uI,-
certake TO dO IL, Is made manifest in the
scheme and by the terms of the organic
act. The first section of the organic act
provides, tlat that POI ton of the territory
OF the United States, within the District
OF Columbia, with the population thereof
shall be GRATED into a government. Not that
the city OF Washington, the city of Georgetown,
and the county shall be transmit grated into a
government; but that the territory and the peo-
pie OF the District OF Columbia shall be created
INTO government, and, of necessity, without
Debtor or creditor, either OF which Is made to
depend upon the act of the government posterior
to its creation, inasmuch all Indebtedness and
REQUIRE thau
identity between this government and the old
one L. TO be found nowhere. They are different
"a SneH ssogrspny; properly, population, and
constituents, if made out of old corpor ations
incompatible with each other, so far as their
antecedent liabilities existed The present gov
eminent finds Washington city large debtor
while Georgetown and the county are compar-
atiyely free from debt To adjudge Georgetown
and the county a joint debtor with Washington
would be to compel them to respond to an in
oebtedness which they never created, and the
benefits Of which they never did. and never can
realize.
But, Congress has not left this question to the
force OF logic. The law maker undertook
and accomplished the solution of this ques-
ton IN the 10th section of the organic act, where
IN u Is provided that each of these corporations
shall, respectively, pay its own debts, and coli
leet its own credits, TO its respective and exclu-
siye use, and its respective and exclusive
obligation. To this end, Congress provided
IN the same section that the life of the several
charters should be extended, with all the rights
when they should be .1fully closed" bringing
the expiring cOrpOT atiOps into no other relations
with the present government than TO make the
terrltOrih legis ature and other functiOnaries of
the existing government the trustees under the
law, and IN the locus quo of the defunct officers
OF the former corporations, to that the proper
debts.
other considerations might be added in aid of
ms CONCLUSION; considerations drawn from the
body OF the act, and outside of il; but enough
has been said. in my judgment. to satisfy the
mind that the cOmplainantS might a. well have
TesoTted to the trust and mortgage records OF
The District with "A view to ascertain the indi-
Nidual Indebtedness of its citizens and after
having done 30. claimed the sum total of such
ih'iy h.e1nesS as part OF the aggregate debt Of
The District, for such Indebtedness sustains the
same relation 20 the present government as the
lnde btednos- upon which they relv.
This conclusion makes 10 unnecessary to- con-
slider the questions which have been made. and
ably elaborated ia argument, touching the juris-
IiictiOu OF the court.
~ the merits OF the controversy fail to suppOrt
The injunction, IL j. needless to inquire into the
que StlOn of jurisdiction.
And, again, this conclusion makes it unim-
lOi iait 10 inquire into the other features of the
act, relative to the disposition of this fund when
acquired; questions that 10 not necessarily in
NOiSe the power 30 create the indebtedness but
pertain to the legal mode of disposng of the
treasure after il II acquired. Ii will be time 10
consider the question of the disposition of this
fund after the government comes into posses
SION OF It. There certainly il no legal prOpriety
by Injunction. Otherw ise. for the court TO in
teTfeTe it'll IL before il exists
10 o. the question of taxation that has been
raised This r. not question involving the
measure OF TAXATION under the limitations of the
act No tar i levied in the premises either
within, or beyond the limitations oil the organic
act; and il will be early enough to consider
whether the law has been violated and the court
has power ID in' eTfeFe with that violation BY
injunction when the violation IL ATTEMPTED
Judge Macarthur concurred in the decision
OF the court and delivered the following opinion:
opinion by Mr.. Justice MaeAPthur
Darts = a.. Appettees, rs. Cooke ef a.. APPEL
fGnts--Objectlons are taken 90 the bill of COM
piainants for the reason that IL does not state
cause OF equity Tor an injunction. This grows
out OF the rules Of pleading which require spe-
cia allegations IN suit OF this eb az acfer sho AZ
ing that the plaintiffs would suffer able
injury, or would be subjected TO excessive itigz-
fion in order TO invoke the equitable powers OF
this Jurisdiction. An alleged defect OF parties
u also relied upon, and il Is further conteuded
that, even IL the bill were not defective in for m
every special allegation stated In the bill rs de,
MED in the answer, and that, therefore, the
action ought 20 be dismissed. These objection.
are only Of technical importance. and perhaps
might be obyiafed by a reformation Of the
record. In this particular instance would not
deem u Just to the case 10 dispose OF IL without