Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1874-03-12
INFORMANT LEGAL DECISION

In the case of the Watertown Il. X.
bonds, in sonre respects similar TO
Che case here, the U. S. Supreme
Court has decided that private pro-
perty cannot be taken for corporate
debts. A report of the case is given
In the Water stwr Democrat, form
which we copy the following:
This is case of sufficient impor-
tance, not only to this city, but ses
all others similarly situated, to JUS
tify recapitulation of its history,
SO that it can be fully understood
1t was a suit Of James II. Rees,
resident Of she city Of Chicago,
against the city Of Watosescs,, which
was a bill in Chanrery in the United
States Circuit Court in the Western
District of Wisconsin, alleging that
we had no Common Council that
could be compelled to levy taxes to
pay the bondholders' judgments,
and asking the United States Mar
shall either to levy the tax or seize
private property generally, and sell
+ it to make payment. The suit was
first tried on demurrer to the bill at
La Crosse, and decided against us.
An answer was then put in, the
proofs taken, and it was tried at
Madison. The judges disagreed
Judge Hopkins being for us and
Judge Drummond against us. H.
view of the magnitude Of the lax,
terests involved, aald also of the fact
that the United States Supreme
Court had once. before had the same
question before them. in a suit
against Beloit, and had not been
able to decide it, being equally di-
vided--four one way and four the
other--J Adge Drmnmond, though
adhering to his opinion, said he
would not take the responsibility of
declaring the law against us, and
the court gave the decisipn, in our
favor.
Mr.. Rees immesa~ely appealed to
the Supreme Court at Washington,
to have the point settled and ascer-
tain. what his rights were. His at
torueys, Messrs. Fl. w. and d. X.
Temey Of Chicago, prepared, print
ed aad presented to the Court a
most careful and elaborate argument
for their client. Mr.. HalE prepared
a brief and argued the case for the
city. 1t was an earnest and deadly
struggle to settle the fact whether
the bondholders OF the. people of
Watertown should 10 to the wall.
Of course, the attorneys of the Ap-
.pellant left nothing uaa4,2e to avoid
failurs, and the attorney for this.
Ieisy Gid everything to succeed
Both parties were fully aware that
the determination of the Court
would be final, and close the contro-
versy forever. Under such circum-
stances, it may etaken for granted
that the whole strength of the case,
on both sides, wa ably an,f exhaus-
lively brought bfore the Court--all
the law, all the pecednnts, all the
reasons, all the constitutional beal-
ings, all the fap-raching effects on
municipal Charters, urged with force
and elearness. After this array of
leaning and zeal the Court has de-
cided the suit iaA favor of our city.
This beats the londholder on the
| plan. OF. execution they had devised,
and sought the aid of the United
States Courts % enforce. 1t not
only does this, hut 1t saves the pro-
perty of the cit from confiscation :
as well as the poperty of all other
cities Throughout the land.
THE largest sock Of Wall Paper
in the city can 10 found at aAe Post
Office Book Stre..
SEVERAL famesS Of this vicinity |
Dut liz one lot heir beef stock. and |