Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1874-03-27
The Decision of the Waterfowl
Case.
[From the Milwaukee Sentinel

The Sentinel has procured at some
| expense a copy of the opinion of the
Supreme Court of the United States
v. the city of Watertown. This de-
cision was ann bounced some time since,
and has been the subject of consider
able comment by the papers, but the
text has not before been published in
full. The case is one Of substantial
interest not only to Watertown but to
| other cities Of the state which are similar
| ly circumstance, and the legal question
involved is one of such importance
that the case is probably destaiLed to
| take rank among the leading ones in
the reports.
The opinion begins with a recital of
the circumstances of the case. The
| plaintiff below and appellant above is
the owner of a judgment against the city
| in the sum of about $i2 600, the judg-
| ment having been recovered on bonds
issued to aid in the construction of the
Watertown & Madison Railroad. Sab
sequently, and at different tines, he
/ procured three several writs of man
damus directing the city to levy and
| collect tax to pay this judgment, but
| as often the embers Of the council
| resigned, and thus service of the writs
was avoided. Upon this state of
facts, the judgment creditor applied
to the United States Circuit Court for
the Western District Of Wisconsin for
decree making the taxable property
of the city subject to the debt and di-
recting the marshal of the court to
seize and sell so much of the property
as may be necessary to satisfy the
judgment. The Circuit Courr denied
the motion, and from this decision an
appeal was had
1t is not proposed to follow the
reasoning by which the supreme court
is led to affirm the ruling of the court
below. The cases from Iowa where pro-
ceedings were ordered and sustained
exactly similar to those which Rees
desired to institute, would seem at
first unanswerable in supporting the
position of plaintiff but this appears
quite otherwise when it is considered
that the law of the State Legislature
which authorized the issue of the
bonds expressly provided that the
court might appoint a person to levy a
tax in payment of principal ard inter
est. In the case of the city of Water
town there was no such law.
The general princi pie upon which
the Supreme Court may be understo God
to refuse this application is this: Not
outstanding party may have right
for which there is no remedy known
to the law, it is not within the re-
sources of court of equity to create a
remedy for which there is no authority
in law. To this it is added that there
is in this case no want of a remedy at
law that the writ of manda mus is
the regular remedy that the only
difficulty is in the execution of the
remedy, and that equity cannot reach
such cases.
The Sentinel has no disposito n to
defend any form of reputation {; but
it has sincere sympathy for the peo-
pie of WATERFOWL. who have been
swindled in their efforts to aid in the
construction of railroads in an>uncon-
scionable degree. In view of this
decision, and in view of the vigilance
and determination of the citizens in
resistance of the collection of the
bonds, it seems probable that the hold
ers will be forced to compromise and
as the bonds are known to have cost
their present owners very much less
than their face, it is not certain that
there will be any injustice in the re-
suit.