, 1876-12-24

HUox in regard to the issue of county bonds
will do more to defeat the operations Of the
present Ring in the County Board than could
have been accomplished by any legal process
begun on the part Of the Taxpayers he has
refused to sign the proposed issue Of
81 1,0o0, 600 of new county bonds until the
Courts shall have passed upon the question
whether or not it is necessary under the law
to submit such issue to vote Of the people.
This is precisely what the County Ring has
been anxious to avoid It Was one of the
points raised in the Injunction suit to
restrain the execution Of the stone contract,
but it was then. claimed that the contract
could be fulfilled on the part Of the county
without the Issue OF the bonds, and the
question was not formally considered. Alr.
HuoK's action, however, brings this ques-
ton before the Courts squarely, if the
County Board insist upon the issue of bonds,
for nothing short Of Judicial decision can
compel the County Treasurer to atix his
signature to the bonds, without which the
issue will be illegal. There has never been
q more striking instance Of the important
service which an honest and courageous off,
cial can render the public.
It is not likely that the Courts will author
ize the issue OF bonds without first submit
ting it to popular vote. A law Of 1872
authorized the County Boards in counties
of more than 0,000 inhabitants to issue
bonds on q two-thirds vote in the Board;
but the General Act of 1874 on Counties pro-
yides that 81 When the County Board Of any
county shall deem it necessary to issue
county bonds to enable them to perform any
of the duties imposed upon them by law,
they may, by IN order entered of record,
specifying the amount of bonds required and
the object for which they are to be issued, SUBJ
nit to the legal voters Of their county at any
general election the question Of issuing such
county bonds" This act does not specif-
cally repeal the previous act applying to
counties of more than 100000 inhabitants,
but it is entitled "An act to revise the law
in relation to countless" SO that, if it
had been the purpose to except the coun-
ties Of more than 1000 inhabitants, such
exception would have been made in ex-
press terms. Moreover, the Supreme Court
decided in the case of Bill 800 that there
cannot be two general laws Of different
terms on the same subject; that one Of them
must Of necessity be special in its nature,
and that the subordinate is imperative. In
this case the application OF such a rule
would shut out the law Of 1872 relative to
counties of 100, 600 inhabitants, and sustain
the general law as applicable to all counties.
Under this construction there can be no is
sue Of bonds without an approval by popu-
lar vote.
# the Courts shall take this view of the
matter, the county may yet be saved from q
consummation of the rasca1ly contracts made
by the Ring for the erection Of the Court
House, and postpone the work until honest
contracts can be made and the work progress
evenly on both the county and city portions
OF the building. There are two events which
together would afford permanent relief, viz !:
~ A decision requiring the issue of bonds
to be submitted to the people, which cannot
be done before the next general election in
the fall and {2) the passage Of law by the
Legislature this winter enabling Cook Coun-
tY to elect an entirely new set Of Commis-
ioners by general vote Of the whole county.
By this conjunction of circumstances the
present proposed issue could be defeated,
and County Board secured which would be
entitled to the confidence Of the people.
Such Bosrd would undoubtedly as-
sumo the building of the entire Court
House upon an arrangement with
the city to pay q rental for its half equal to
the interest on one~ha1f the bonds, and it is
not unlikely that the whole building can be
erected under this system and honest man
agement for what it will cost to build the
county's half under the control of the present
County Ring.
There is not much apprehension that the
Ring contractors will be able to recover dam.