The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-18


poses mad been given to the county or II
s meney N question hsa been the
annual taxes OF the County i to pay its ordinary
charges ana expenses under appropriations made
by the Board OF Supervisors Tor the support OF the
to which the act OF 1882 relates q title in the
county might be made out. In that case the
control and power OF disposition OF the money
would be conferred by law upon the Supervisors
They could appropriate and apply 1t to the ex.
their discretion But the present case is entirely
different the money was raised for a specific
purpose DESIGNATED IN the act and the supervisors
thority or power to divert single cent OF It from
that specified purpose. There was no grant OF
was no surplus to arise in which the
county could be interested. for no more was TO
&c Sana s%s s. :: the
Auditors There was no direction TO pay the
money into the county treasury nor was the least
not even lis custody. On the contrary. the State
undertook, tnr ough Its own direct agents named IN
the act TO administer the fund to the exclusion OF
any action Of the Supervisors. The claims were TO
be audited oy the special board appointed by the
legislature ana to be paid by the Comptroller OF
ference IN the matter by the Board OF Supervisors
But It is said the credit Of the county was vas
county should have the money. what Is
the credit Of tine county, It is not LIKE like
ration having power to contract debts ana
property out Of which they can be collected oy
legal process. The county Is one OIL the civil ana
political divisions OF the State. 1t holds property
only for pubic uses. and no such property is liable
on civil process for debts. The State IN this case
provided for the payment OF certain debts OF the
county BIZ directing the local authorities TO levy
taxes within the boundaries Of their county, and in
anticipation OF the collection Of such taxes au-
| thorized the issue OF bonds. The creditors who
took the bonds trusted the justice OF the State ana
exc through the means 3 By the
The obligations in question were not obligations
voluntarily incurred by the county, or in conse-
nnp nf IN mn do hu hUf w
created by order OF the State, for Tie purpose Of
carrying into effect q statute s. OF me
pledged not to withdraw its requirement. that
the local authorities shall levy the tax for the pur
advanced by them upon the bonds. The bonds
amount to nothing more than legally authorized
certificates OF the amount which each holder is
entitled to receive out OF the tax which the state
has directed to be levied, and on the faith OF which
tax the lender has advanced his money. The State.
the money was raised ana must be repaid.
THE COUNTY ORGANIZATION
IS 70 do wa 81 be
questioned that the State has an interest in pro-
tecting the fund.- and recovering 1t or
nave wronglully possessed themselves of 1t
by combining with the agent OF the Slater
county ever have to the possession OF this fund.- 1t
is Impossible to point to any law giving them such
. right. what power OF disposition would they
it2 What could they do with its II it were their
money they could do anything they chose with it
Board OF Supervisors, or to the erection OF public
buildings, or TO any other purposes. or to release
would be clearly in contravention OF law The
authority to raise It was for the sole purpose OF
paying claims existing prior TO April g. 1870, and
it could not lawfully be applied to any other. Those
claims have been paid and overpaid 1t is said the
Supervisors might apply It towards the pay.
was raised, or Of those which have been
substituted IN their place. TO the assertion that
exeed the pRysca bower Of aupyna Them TO
the payment OF those bonds 1t Is sufficient
answer In law that they had no legal right so to do
and. IN fact, that they might have made some diff
ferens disposition Of them. To hold that where
fund raised as this was under an act OF the Legis
laiure Tor specific purpose, named in the acs, has
not been applied to the purpose for which 1t was
raised, the supervisors OF county nave the legal
re pR II 70 os
tanned. It would be to allow the agent to overrule
THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION.
IL cannot be supposed that the Legfsla-
ture ever intended that any such result
on sas # 81 the and
placed at the disposal OF the Supervisors OF the
county OF New York, without any direction as to
It's application, especially IN view OF the TACT that
the Legislature mas consistently denied to that
county the unlimited power which is accorded to
necessary for the expenses OF local government,
and has compelled the county OF New York to
cation Of the amount desired to be raised and OF
the purposes In detail TO which the money so to
be raised is to be applied. Not only has the gen
eral taxing power conferred upon boards or super
visors OF other counties OF the State been With
held from the county OF New YORK, but for long
period the existence OF the county as an organza-
ton was nominal merely. A record OF the pro-
ceedngs OF the Board OF Supervisors Of that county
1910 is contained In single small volume, and
they show that IT existed as county more for the
tnn a wss taa
same as that OF the city, and the latter exercised
all the powers OF municipal government. In 1857
time to time conferred, and were often used for
corrupt purposes but the act OF 1870 stripped the
board OF the most important OF these powers ana
conferred them upon the special auditors. The
proposition that the supervisors thus denuded of
power are the proper BODY to car to account the
cism unsupported by law or logic. The people Of
the state, through their Legislature, are the only
Of this fuEd.-State OF Md, vs. b. and o. r. r., IL
GILL; and J. 800 and s. 9. 3, How U. s. R 5s4.
DUTIES OF THE SUPERVISORS.
can see no ground upon which the Supervisors
OF the county can claim the fund or damages in
question TO the exclusion OF the State. The only
purpose for which any party can claim to recover
ant hold this money Is for the Indemnity OF the
taxpayers, who are or will be burdened with the
bonds. But there Is no law creating the Supervi-
sors trustees for any such purpose. Supervisors
are not the representatives or guardians OF the
b saats tSe8 ca
not exceed the powers thus conferred upon them.
The actions which they may bring are confined to
to enforce liabilities or duties enjoined by law
to them or to the body which they represent, that
Is, the county In Its corporate character. They
nave no right to intervene for the projection OF
the general interests OF the Inhabitants or tax
payers Of the county: q DEMO, 4e4; II n. Hamp.,
ia; Allen 1856: Black [lndal 1861 This duty
specially devolves upon the State authority. Davis
vs.. The Mayor; Duer, 1858; s. $. IA. N. r., 500;
Attorney General vs.. Eastlake, IL Hare 223.) Tho
legal custodian OF the fund which may be recov-
cred In this action is not pointed out by any stat
ute, and this Is very natural. The existence even
n n q We All in
tended that any more money should be raised on
bonds than should be paid out in regularly audited
claims. But think 1t q safe and necessary doc
trine that where moneys are thus raised
under color of law, upon obligations which
are burden upon the tax payers OF the
State at large or OF particular locality, and such
moneys are unlaw ully ted by individuals,
and there IS no local authority or oflcer clearly
vested by law with the right TO for their recov
cry, the State must OF necessity be held to be the
proper party to prosecute. We're 1t otherwise pub
tic funds thus situated would be wholly unpro-
tected and liable TO be plundered with Impunity.
But assuming that there was right OF action In
the SUPERVISORS as contended by the defendant,