, 1877-01-26

Mi. LtncOln-llIe certificate nl Gletllon, a.
understand Tic decisions, ccEtics TINT rcEiatn
ImliYaal vas elected 10 oil ot!see, but vritlca |
nothing M tn his qualifications. That tIuestinn
re!nains "l,cu. sosnc onc n'''at l'nas upun Ills |
1algc McAllistcr-Tho Court In direct pro-
cecding mist pass on It: but can you pass on It
colatcrullyt
sIr. Linculn--Hc must establlsll his right be.
fore can help him e, tho nfllcu Of Col!crt1r.,
iuw Mr. l.lnroln tftctl rrtrkcti vs. Bean. L<gdt
Macs, Vol. i, 4n5, |. Arkansas, 2t, fayfor
r. Tho % Gov"rnor, a%4 ; ,',fo,, otsr ou'tet' Tns
Cn,irt court rt,nh '7o nothing hcttcr for tho
community than to rcftise fts sanction 10 thu
syste'n Of :rFeguarlty andirrcsponsit)ity which
had S1sse ., for y ny ysas 1nh n the tt tw To
worse, and l'e urges! the Court to g;se carncnt
weight to the considerations on tho record.
Nh. FULLER .......
nest A. addressed I te cort for tle net,;Eoner
Mr. Lnruln. Tie ense ought to be t;G: tdcd ac-
cor1lng IL the lnw, and tho sooner this loose
way Of referring so tho inttrest: Of t!e coin.
anything worse than another in TIL. 1!.!gatI3r.
It was tho theory that tho end jnstffcs tho
mcaus. Tho suporvisor was not Tho AUTHORITY
to pass upon tho eligibility OF Evans. There
tions anil determining the qucstions which had
llecr dragged into court for nearly.
year III regard 10 this matter. Had
@ 1at method , been pnu;d, pvrsne; ana for thfbs tbs
allegations, tho case would hare been settled IN
twenty tlays according to Low. But tic other
aldo prcEIrrel to tako tho law Into t,,cir 3wli
hands, and they wero now, as a!seIthou4hIs,
keen petttimlcr out Of o!licc The first oncstioti
10 III lctczmncd was not tl1at of eligibility; but
whether that question of eligibility could bc
ssstfs 81 sSs cons'ason u M " hat hat that ind no
Ing to .lo III tho case ttch i could be deter1ila
ctt whether there was anything " tic Charge:
IN teir ig1ent, owsyer. the auesft5on sftn,,, q
fcctlon Of AT. TX. o: tte Constitution provided
flint n1ly ncrsuu IN default na Collector could
not bo eligible for any uI'ico under tho munich
pality. In order to make on' that Evans waa f-
eligible. II would have to ha sl'o"ntiat llo was
iefuultcr. IIe contcndcd that pettti TONER
WIS Collector dc iaeto sllcc tho 9Th duY OF
April, when he took the oath Of oillcc. The
bdnl presented the Supervisor wns amply s1lal'-
lactctl arc tho personnt property tnKes alonci
ever, II TINT were not 30, tilu cltatOm an ut1pe
Ut twe.l1y ye4rs lad settleI that tho true con
structiu,l Of tho law wns not tliat The surctle5
,scru to justify IN t1sc penal sum, but In sucl' a
amount ~ sllnu1d be auIlitlent to secure what
taxes were likely 10 be In the llnnds Of tile Col
| loctDr. Tho rual-Cstate tux was nothln. moro
trne @ and would 1nloub: b:ady be insisted, tint
| thc Collector could receive voluntary payments,
vet llc gould not COMPEL payment, md tho wnr
rant wns p0wGYlcss In Its hands. After citlv
| urging that tho Supervisor had no siEl!t to r.
l1sc 10 approyc the amended bonl even II tho
| cIgit dnys hail elapsed.
| TIte Court thon toOk Tceoss.
Nf1lcn tile Court resumed In the afternoon,
Mr.. flcrrtck suhmittcd authorities On the gen.
tral principles goycri.in. Il writ 0f lnandaInus
~ to The question of the powers vested in thu
Supervisor, usld other points which had bcen
| discussed.
| then continued the argument of petitioners 3
case. In opening TIC said The principles which
governed md controlled this remedy weru
to citc cases bearing thereon or to discuss the
general question. They c1nIncd that. TN tho
lacth act up ind tic questions presented, IL was
the absolute dutJ Of the Supervisor to aprrosc
tho bond that WAS presented IL HIN by pctlfon-
cr. In regard 10 the otur branch Of the cnse,
they claimed that even though tic petitioner
ycro mistaken in regard to that position, the
Court wo1d ySmel ,' te Suers*r r. 70 vet upo'
without saying how tf1at officer should
use Ills discretion rs to tic s,,tllgcr-
cy OF tho bond. Tho Tcason wlIy thu
y ~, frse saee IL 10 anfovs ts Etc. is
Judgment tlic securities wcrI not wtrtll the
sun specified ua the penalty Of The, fMtnl. III
this actoa, tho Supervisor aasu'le1 that tile luw
required tic securities 10 he worth tue niuount
| Of the l,oud. That was an erroneous position
1t wus only necessary that tho securities should
be worth y sufficient sum to prutcgt tho puk3tie
and tic tsltIercnt government - whom tl!t
aut, However, now sought to set up that It wai
II different rcusun--thnt of Evans i1cligibliits
fur tho ollice-why tho bond was not approved
1t was clear that question could not bio raised
Tin, ralsctl t!lc question rs 10 whether o. 10!
1.yuns was ucfnultcs Nncr tho Constituton
Frnn tia record, u apnearca that Eyans tntl
p!d oyer svsfy d"ar wGh M s soIse'sa cx.
tho city taxcs,-,a,ld tho other s10.4s@, tl,t
anouut TINT he actually .ruad ont u
clcrks, aud deputies, and for contingent nsn
question was whether, for rclainlng this money
Evans WAS q tle!aultcr. Thcru HAS NJ pretunst
Of wllIful default, or conversion OF money TO- I'LL
own use; the point was reduced 10 questIors o
Intricate law uf doubtful construction. as Il
whether tic Collector was liable for none,
which ic retained on thu ground that he hatt
legal right to do 50: The commission on cit.
taxua wus allowed by city ordinance. II wa
but. even II that Wcso the fact, Il proved NJ
actual wrong III tlp part OF petitioner In retail,
Ing tho commission. hut tho city had full con
TIL ossr It's an1nses nn1 Ind TIC power IT, pro
! es. Then this question was narrowed down t.
the right Of Eyans to retain TIC . per cent coIu
mission allowe! BY tle city; was hc bound uu
Atht"Ae ~" @se-Ht*ty t@@ sS"Ns *HS
| tended that he was not; It woul ba ytHlg
tion OF fundamental right. In rtgar
10 the amount ot this hon1s couuss
hrl1 ttlat Il WIS amply sufficient. II 1t ha
bccn tic usage for twenty yeurs that tue sllrt
ties wcrn only to be responsible for the amo1,
! which tho c9llcytor would probably have IN Ill
hands, AMI tho bond WIS executed In ptlrsuan.
Of that rule, thu h,"l was good, and It YVES tn
, tlnty OF tic Supervisor to approve Ut 1t. Nj
7 tl0lilY tl,uu discussed the provision Of Il,
, Township Organization law to tls eIcct that
buuA WINS mt given III the required tfmu
should le construed O. refusal to scrvc.
: wus claimed By the defendant that tho bon
presented to hin Within the eight days nllowc
: BY law was insullclent, and that that operate
n1 vacation OF tlu ol!,ee, as.d tl,as he waa hi
bound to consider. any bn,ld presented at latt
: day. The original meaning Vt tl'u statute "!
!. undoubtedly shat, II u man paid uo sttantiun I
the oi}lro aflcr io was appointed or elected, a,.
: dld not take the oath, II should be refusal
; act gu Lila part. In thts casa so.l
%as filed, anu petitioner claimed tho Q
: tlec. aud, under thcso circumstance
. wus y fuiture to. gtyo u bond that W.
" satisfactory to tho Supervisor ta ho deemed
: refusal to aerv0t II such q eo,latr,.ctluu ",
tolerated, ali sorts Ut abuses a1,t& frutie intgj
. bo retHrtcl IT, by t4e supervisor. II, on Il
I a