Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1874-03-25

asked for. We are of the opinion that this
court has not the power to direct tax
to be levied for the payment of theseIudg-
ments. This power to impose burdens and
raise money is the highest attribute 'ef
sovereignty, and is exercised, first, to fstsc
money for public purposes only: ane, Sc
cond, by the power of legislative authority
only. 1t is power that has not been ex-
| tended to the judiciary. Especially is it
| beyond the power of he federal judiciary
| to assume the place of state in the exer-
else Of this authority at once so delicate
and SO important The question is not en-
tirely new in this court.
| In the case of Supervisors v, Rogers e
Wall. l75) sn order was made by this court
| appointing the marshal commissioner,
with power TO levy tax upon the taxable
property of the county, to Fay the principal
aud interest Of certain bonds issued by the
county, the payment of which bad been re-
| fused That case was like the present, ex-
cept that it occurred in the state of Iowa.
and the proceeding was taken by the ex-
press authority of statute Of that state
| The court say
| ''The next question is his to the appoi ntment
! Of the marshal as commissioner to levy the
! tax in satisfaction of the Judgment. This
depends upon provision of the code Of the
| State of Iowa. This proceeding is found in
| q chapter regulating proceedings in the writ
of mandamus, and she power is given to the
court to appoint person to discharge the
! duty enjoined by the perem ptory writ which
| the defendant had refused to perform, and
for which etusal he was luble to an at tach
ment, aud is express and unqualified. The
duty of levying the tax upon the taxable
property of the county to ray the principal
| and interest of these bonds, was specially
enjoined upon the Beard Of Supervisors by
the act of the Legislature that authorized
their issue, and the appointment of the mar
| shall asa comm issioner in pursuance of the
above section, is to provide for the perform
| ance of this duty where the board has dis
| obeyed or evaded the law of the state and the
peremptory mandate of the court"
The State of Wisconsin, of which the
city of Watertown is a municipal corpora
ton, has passed no such act. The case
| of Supervisors vs. Rogers. is, therefore, of
no authority in the case before u.s. Tho
appropriate remedy of the plaintiff was
and is a writ Of mandamus.-(See Riggs
| vs. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 1913 This
may be repeated as often as the occasion
requires. 1t is a judicial writ part Of a
recognized course Of legal proceedings
| In the prese ut case it has been thus far un
| availing, and the prospect of its future
success, is, perhaps, not hsttering. How
ever this may be, we are aware of no au-
| thority in this court to appoint it's own
| officer to execute the duty thus neglected
by the city iu case like the present
In W lsh VS.. St. Genevieve, 30 Am
Law R. 5l2, at 8 Circuit Court in the dis
| trip of O " or1n tn hn
levied by the marshal under similar cir
cumstances. We are not able to recog
nize the authority Of the case. No coun-
eel appeared for the city, (Mr. Reynolds
as am,cus curtP only j no authorities are
cited which sustain the position taken by
the court, the power Of the court to make
the order is disposed ct in single para
| graph, and the execution of the order sus-
pended for three months to give the cor
poration an opportunity 10 select officers
and itself to levy and collect the tax, with
the reservation of a logger suspension If
it should appear advisable: The Judge in
delivering the opinion of the Court states
that the case is without precedent, and
cites in support Of its decision no other
cases than that of Riggs vs.. Johnson Coun
ty e Wall 1861 ana Lansing VS.. Treasur-
err, 8 Am. Law Reg N. s., AIS. The case
cited from e Wallace does not touch the
present point. The question in that case
WAS whether mandanus having been is
sued by a United States Court in the reg
ular course of proceedings, it's operation
could be stayed by al injunction from the
State Court, ami it was held that it could
not be. It is probable that the case oil
Supervisors vs.. Rogers, Il Wall, lis,
was the one intended to be cited. The
case has already been considered. The
case of Lansing w. Treasurer, (also cited
arose within the State of Iowa. 1t fel
within the case of Supervisors vs.. Rogers
and was rightly decided because aut hor
lied by the express statute Of the Sta to Of
Iowa. 1t offered no precedent for the de-
clsion of . case arising ia state where
sucha statute does not exist. These are
the only authorities upon the power o.
this court 70 direct the levy of tax under
the circumstances existing in this case tt
which our attention has been called.
The plaintiff insists that tie court may
accomplish the same result under differ
ent name, that it has jurisdiction of the
persons and of the property and may sub
ject the property Of the citizens to ths
| pdy "Sh9 VI SAV pAAAuIAA AoOG WttuOu
the intervention of state taxing officers
and without regard to tax laws. His
theory is that the court should make
decree subjecting the individual proper
ty Of the citizens of Waterfowl TO the
payment Of the plaintiffs judgment; di,
rect the Marshal to make q list thereo
from the assessment rolls, or from such
other sources of information IS he may ob
tain; report the same to the court, where
any objections may be heard that the
amount of the debt should be apportioneo
upon the several pieces of property owned
by the individual citizens; that the Mar
shall should be directed to collect such ap
portioned amount from such persons, OF
in default thereof to sell the property
As part of this theory, the plaintiff
argues that the court has authority to Iii
rect the amount of the judgment to be
wholly made from the property belonging
to any inhabitant of the city, leaving The
citizens to settle the equities be,weeE
themselves. This theory has many diff
cuties to encounter. In seeking to Oh
tain tor the plaintiff his just rights We
I L y