, 1875-07-03
Important Decisions Of the Sus
prcme Court.
The Law Authorizing secessions from
Cities, Etc., Declared Void.
An Opinion Concerning tho North Door
OF the Courthouse.

THE SUPREME COURT,

naukinson st al, recently doclded By tho Bu-
promo Court, tho statute OF April 10, 1872. en-
titled "An act to provide for Rnnexng and OF.
cludlug territory to and from c1t!es, towns, and
villages, and to unite cltics, towns. and VII
lagos" IL construed and declared void, and as it
Ia Of public interest over ali lhe State, full ab.
siracs Ia given Of the opinion,
The suit wah brought Under tile provisions OF
tho act BY number Of propcEty-ownors and
voters OF tue City Of Ghlesburg By petition
filed In the Circuit Court Of Knox
County PRAYING for dlaconuecslou of their
lsnds from the territory comprised within the
corporate limits Of tho city. The city appeared
BY its counsel opposing tho petition on the
grounds chictlv that, NJ tho city owed = bondad
debt Of 100000, tho withdrawal Of y large
portion OF the territory Of tho city liable TO tax
alton for tito payment Of that debt would be a
palpnphblo violation of tho provisions OF tho
State Constitution requiring tsxatiou to be nn-
form. and requiring also that all tho taxable
property within the limitB Of municipal co,po-
ration etoull be taxed to pay its dcbss, and
wonld operate al great injustice upon tue
owners Of real estate aud Taxpayers In the city
wlaoHa real ostase should remain within ite
liulita after tho proposed diHconnectioa
should take placo. aud also upon the erouad
tint the rights OF creditors and tho ownera Of
tho botds would bo tnjur,ouHy atfectcd, aud tho
obligation Of their contrActs impaired an viola
tton Of the Constitution Of this uhitod Htates.
verdict Nht decroo wot0 rendered 10 favor of
tho petitioners, allowing them to d,acunnect
tier lind, mud all appeal talsen to tho supreme
Court. whore tho sasne pointa wero ngnin made.
lowor court. holding tho net undor
which suit was brought to be unconssi-
trtionai. After rctorring to tue facts
asln,itted,-namely .siet tho land sought to he
4 ~fht ill., - 1t...f&
anl that tho city owed s9o,o o0o.-she Court TO-
marked tlat, inaHnuch n all tazabl0 properly
within tile limits Of snch corporations must, un-
dur the Constitution, bo taxed Oh tho bnalH uf
uniformity ~ to pernons and property for tho
payment Of municipal tudobtedaeHH it waa plan
that tho Withdrawal OF any real essato from tho
Jurisdiction OF such taxation. where given H,In
was to DO raised. would to that c4tcns. increase
tho burden Of thxation on tho property renaln-
Ing within the corporate limits. Az Ill corporate
iudobtednoaa rms presumably incurred for tho
equal benefit Of every part OF tho
municipality, 1t would bc In itself an iujnatice
to tho remaining Taxpayers, uucsa The act Of DIS
some corresponding benef1t to tho municipality.
being In derogation OF tue common law tho
statute In question should DO strictly construsd,
and tho city might rightly ins!st that nothing
should ho tnkcn in favor OF tho petitioners BY
intendnont merely. The verdict Of tho jury
naA insufficient to wnrrant tho decree. Il WAS
simply for tue petitioners. wli!o tho statute Do
manled-and 1t waa susceptible OF only one
inso,pretaton-shat tho Court trying tho
caue should dud whether the territory ought to
bo disconnected, aud, II 30, wlesher it could bo
lono without any injustice to tho inhabitants
OF persons tnteTeBtcd therein. 1Sut tltcre WAS ,
still weightter objection. Dy Art: 3 OF tho Con.
Htitution, "Tha powors OF tho Government Of
this State arc divided iuto threo distinct depart
.nents, tic Legislative. Executive, and Judicial.
aud uo pesson OF collection Of porsons, being ons
Of these departments, shall exercise any power
| F}kt ~ -
rept Is was hereinafter Expressed, etc. Tho
boundsries OF tho City OF GaieHbu1g wero
defined by ita charter and amendments
thereto, md any change in its boundariea must
,ts municipal Jurisdiction, and therefore consti-
| tuto 30 far an amendment Of its charter.
Though the Legislature might delegate antbort-
! ty 10 municipal corporation to mako changoB
] Dat tho aot OF 1879 Attempted to invest tho
| judiciary with power noe merely to determine
| whothcr certain prescribed conditions upon which
! ths Law was to take effect existed, but whother
- to ccrtain lcca!ity thore oughssobc change
eub}ect; and II iii tho opinion of tho Court tho
change ought to be made and injustice not be
dofe /. was empowered to mako II. Whathec
citsos, townB. or yillagoa should b. Incorporated
! and II incorporated Whether enlarged Or con-
| trhctad In their boundaries. presented no luos-
ton Of Law or fact for judicial determination It
WAS purely = question OF policy 10 be determined
by the Legislative department.,
II tho boundaries Of municipal corporations
could bo altered untl changed BY tue Legislature
ID its discretion. aud tho satlloristea waro alt
that way, then 1t wnula DO impossible
That tho oourta could bo Invested with such
power. Courts might dotormine what wers the
corporate lim!ta already eBtab!ahed-they might
determine whcther what wss claimed BY tho
rnun,cpal authority to bo the corporate limlth
wero 90 or not. and thoy might Inquire "hataor
tho Legislative authority had exceeded The powers
knA -t.,akn
m existing Law applicable to tho particular sub
tcct nni the inquiry sAs ~ to Whist Ihe Inn
wAa. and whether It had been violated or com
Piled With In tho present case tue Inquiry was n
boundaries OF tho ctsy,-whethsr shose dssig.
natcd by tho Charter or ~ prayed by til.
tetttioneza-and tho decree OF Tho Court w*s tht
answer. That dccros assumed 10 be not !
| declaration OF rights under tho law, but tho lar
itself amending apl changing previous slAtutl
NJ to tho e1tont Of territory over which par
tlculnr municipal government should obtain. ant
that Of cou1Be, being baynnd lts powers, was void
The decree waB 'shareforo reYe.sed. Messss
Miller d Frost appeared for appellants.
rux NORTH DOOR or THH counr-uousE.
Tbs north door Of the Court Aoose, tiko Bar
quos ehost, still refuses to down, and unoxpec,
edly r,ass to make trouble for sous untort1nat
pFopezty-owuer. In tho cAsa Of ChArleH A
Gregory W. George A. Clark at al, hoxesoE,
received defcat which viii 70 far to sot
tie tho vo1ed question. Ths anit va
. brought to outoin sslo under four trust
deeds dated July 10, 1879, and containiu
tho usual provisions for aale the plaza beinI
designated N "the north door Of tbs Court
llonse. In ths City Of UbicAEo.' Tbs Truhte
advertised tho land for sale At the north door Q
. tho Court-1iouse, In the City OF Chicago III th
County Of CoAk, aud State Of ii|tunis, namsi.
u the west door Of the north doom of tho buIle
inR uhed a. Coutt-lIouse, situated 1t tho eoutt
eabt corner OF Lstalio aud Adams streets, In ii
<lty ot Chicago The Court below. aftor hearln
the facts dismissed tic bill for want Of equft,
: and an appeal WAS taken. Tho Supreme Cour
after referring 10 tlls partial destruction OF tt
1 old Cour.-IIouao IN tho great IRE, said shas
tho time the trust-deuds wese mAdoiu July. 1877:
Tho buildings OH Adams atroet wero uBsd for
Eoust-uonse for tho Superior aud Circu
Courts. and tlAt all wrlta made resurnAnle
those courts were retusnAble 'at the Uour
!: House .n tho CITY Of Chicago" Unier tho ci
eumstancos, Tiers wAs no doubt but thAt the IL
WIS, In tha present caae advertised to ho mas
II tho right place,--At tho place designated
the trust.deod. and the decros Of the Court b
. | la Z l k.au Etua