, 1874-06-20

sannot 10 granted. Tho 'nectssary eireet oi
i. esae, ss' rts ovn 'sfsss s's e 'tasysr 'o% sas
G snr oe e sso sn Ss y 5 70 0 IT.
!ssai @ on's M ips,'osa', y t. T. srssr, d If:
u lsan Theoretically municipal purpose., an thoro
fnto for . sufficient consideration received hy ihe
ns's as II .ys Il % eea s ss ssss C sSas s
es Ts;ys,l tss
4 Id III. JOHNSON County e s.2rh f.: % I
Ss ana saas for sae
all r.as2 ,nS '''a' % no rssry i s
ths sI parttauIae % counties, tornsaiits, ctics ard
T. IL s H. a .es @ o IL sss sea ss s
ihe my,ont Of tho debts Of tho county, township,
Ely town a hss hls fFIorsty y spss 70 t1
~ caaat then, otherwise rcxar,s fe exemption fron
mere grtity, Ito continuance Of which rested in Tho
pleasure Of tho = 1sKlAlat!1re anl tue soyeroign
Of 4d the B1o No ef a1 o ras1
construction anil ofcct, induced to voo to incr tn-
dcLsclncas ty particular counties. towusips citie'.
wou bit wo Gun perceive difference between their
condition and that Of tho Individual who relying Tn
rontracts tolts which tho snbeequcns Withdrawal ot
that bounty leaves him to pay from Ills own limited
rcso'rces Io re f. that shenrsion.& & from taa1,lo h"
grAnsed az moro privilege, md not Tor siilicient
Consideration Coolcya constitutional Limitations.
alton enforced either by nav Constitution Of by an
act ot s General A4seHy e. III T The
lei,cr il no1crntiyc, although ihoro might 10 no pro-
fcxsoa design to repeal It. (ls vs. Chicago, GO ILL.,,
II s nrgue1 TINT It not intended BY. those who
Trained the present Constitution to repeal any or te
provisions OF tho act OF ls6o tha y was oniy
tint instrument is clear and frea from ambiguity
doubt. ml1st control whatever may havo boen the de-
Sign OF those by within 1t was framed. iCootoys Con.
;aS4a s i .st,s h ss se s ss
executive, Int TINT It required LEGISLATION to put 1t in
forcr, still cannot DO tlGted that when tho General
Asrsnoy @ s to s ~. Sacl Il fen
for TO Ills provisions. It surely cannot bo clatmed
that under Tho gse Of otactIng laws 10 K,o effect to
rcrrctuatcd ia dlnrctrlcul opposition 10 these pro-
sistvns. t1lllls y. Chicago, snpra)
"sec q, Art. o-Tho General Assembly shall haVe
power to rc1ease or tltscharRa any county city,
Or ID s bs 9syiy n1osssy eren Sf hs e rom
f vs dss as ss,sS ss
aPso rssres ha oenesa Assembly sss pre M 's
os 80 int aa s
tax in Proportion to TUG value Of a hor Or It's pro1
sr IS Of nsSS ns 20 e.or
Ing to tile debates Of the Constitutional Convention to
anrsrtain their plain, Obvious aud natural 1neal'g
folows; ~,
ss s a5s @ b ps'ss y s t. s ss%ss sssa
Bns for thu purpose hereinafter set forth: For gen.
s91 9 ~ ss to s ~ At rem %
900 annually thorcafter for State school p'irposes to
bo desgnacd tho Stale school fund, In lion Of thu
SEQ. 2. The Governor nnd Auditor shall annually
compute Tho separate rates per cent required to pro-
my other net providing different manner OF ascer
taning tllo anonnt Ut roscno required to bo levied
a9s s SlS f. o s ee f.
therefor, and aso such tleinito rites for other pr
70 10 ieyiea md md eosstsa ID ~ sssto ta.es ''
Is taI f. lsse on MI tns tasano property IN tho
uage Tic act or tho Consitution that In tho rorur
uonal amount Of each taxpayer HH determined with
reference to s,h valuation IN some counties tow,.,
pay one-hult Or onetlitrl,, wltlo III other counties,
tSwnsps @ & os* and @ tnwns G s h. m reass
n,,inistsrial. ,, Thcy had no authority to do moro
iuuu CUHlFNtN tAO holnI7hlS Iuteb ECr KILL
evy. md when tl!s was done End the result certified
torlty IN to hw nor Inter thu osti.ution to extend
1t otherwise than e4nay upon MI tnxahlo property in
p,oporon III ts valuc,as asceltntncd and determined
BY tIosc upon whom tho law IMPOSED tho duty Of u.s.
sesyug 1t.
see q tho act OF lsee It will have hocn ol,orve
tho deficiency III tue amoant necessary to 1,ay
Tho interest non The indebtedness 2. aly
i%eoS Il I'll tSfaa ap ss sf '0D 4,aSs
ny nave un received for that pufi'oao under scr !,
valuation Of property within surh county, township,
rits or town, 1equsrcd to meet and sa.sfy ths amount
rost to tic Suite oi coilceon mi disbursement o ho
nnle, to ue cssated BY tue Auditor nr.l TREASURER.
an shall make and transmit to tho County Gork Of
mated requisite per eent M % for sci 1 parposo % to 10
hlrd III Ills olce. aud tho per centuln shall cre-
upon bu stvruc added tuaM part Of tho psr centum
wnrh ia may bn levied or provided by law for pr-
posses IT satn royenuc mud s!a be 40 treated by aca
seIk, etc. This clearly autorizes tue levy aud COL
lection Of leuinornt necessary to supply tho delcul
cy in tho payment Ut tho interest due upon the iutebt
e,ners of hacl Counties Townships, ctiea aud towns
r1Ya;is,, us State rovcuuo, but Il 4 expressly
ttsd ,x i, 5c to e sSnty to%nsnn: ei
erred a 50 Tar Us tho last clause oi &c., Of tho net
IN forSc July 1871 can hayo ay reterolco to the act
o. r 1 o. t ya'o u TO- ts M ssso .o I IT, M con-
Of paying mnnieipa! Indebtedness ipcu. rcd by ona
county, county, township, city, or Or town, upon the
st'nip, ss,'y VI Or, Of town; nor dess It authorize
tlan paualiy upon the aasesacd value Ut a te taxable
property in tho S!ac. No words TINT wo can conceive
Gun atli force Of expression to tho language Of the
Constitution botore quoted: !" Hut the Genural Az
senby aa llayu power to reluass discharge any
county, stty. township. town, Or district wtaever or
thu nhabanta thurcof Or tho property thcre!n ffom
their it's propolouate shuro Of to bs levied
for stae PURPOSES" Even tho Gourral ASSEMBLY,
which 1eyiei thu present tax, derived tts exis-
tunee fIom tho provisions of tie sumo Co,lHt!-
tuon, aud, II tAIa provision wore not binding
u.un II, IL ts impossible to .coucode thAt ever can
laye any obligatory force.
IL Is impossible 1or TO escape tho conclusion that
under lilo Constitution MI. law now A forco, 80 much
Of the Act Ut 1860 requires tho Stato to 10
collected tls valuation uf tho taxable property III
the sa.o ra!uung after dcuctng lin countics towns
hbi. cltiee, autt towns which Aavo outstanding in-
debieAcBs cnrred in nnl at tho construction Of rail-
rtH) this Increased valuation Of tho axabl8 prop
crty oyor that Of the yoar 1868 il, ubrogated, mil
olllnot bn enforced. The samo question substantially
that presented by tho praseut case, beforo this
Court IN People o. REL KaHkuskla Navigation Com,