The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1879-04-03

levied, ana II peing Inc DUTY OF these re-
spondents, the Mayor and Council Of the
jcity, and the Commissioners of the couu-
Ties 10 levy as commanded, and they hsv-
ing taken an official oath to the effect that
they would perform the duties of their of
fee respectively, and having failed TO COM
ply with the requirements Of that oath OF
Office, and having refused to perform their
official duties, there il, We claim, on the
part of this nation, now in this matter
represented by your Honor, but one thing
to do In this matter. and that is TO suppress
this incipient rebellion against its laws
which lie now making such beadwsy in the
lard In the form of attempted repudistion.
and refusal to perform official duties These
creditors have right that the taxes asked
for be levied. 1t has long been the duty of
these respondents 10 levy tina. ta1-they
have been required so to DO on hearing,
and by the final process Of this Court-but
they stiil defy the law and the orders CT the
Court, and are here 10 day in substance re
fusing 10 obey the mandates of this CJur;
Shall the will OF this nation, expressed
by i,s laws, be set al nsught? Shall the de-
msnd Of these creditors for an Immediate en-
forcement of the remedies given by the law
for the enforcement OF their rights be de-
layed, because these respondents wish to
see il they cannot, by delays, buy out jIs-
tice and sicken the plaintiffs from anV-al-
ing to the Courts for the enforcement Of
their rights. thus in effect DELAYING justice,
and compelling creditors 10 buy il of de-
PENDANTS themselves, contrary TO common
right and justice?
As the power 10 fine and imprison with
out limit is given to Courts at common
law, until those who have by mandamus
been required toperform duty, will so do
| we now here move that there respond
en,s be fined in an amount equal to the
| judgments, debt and cost in theae cssss,
namely: Nos. 1Il2. 1909, 1851. 1895,
1904, 1925, 1928. 1859. I727, 1862, l77l,
I772, 1873, 1888, 1875, ISL, 1884.
1911, 1918. as numbered on the docket Of
this Court, and that such tiLe be enforced
by imprisonment until the required
taxes are duly LEVIED, and that
such fine be collected, and not RENTED IN,
less these respondents do forthwith levy the
required taxes, and see 10 il that proper
steps are taken, resulting in collection there
OF, and thus perform their oath bound duty,
and make such amends az they may for
having so long delayed creditors, and that
Fnch fines be for the benefit Of the plaintiffs
in these suits. As the Law has given remed :
of fine and imprisonment TO enforce obedi'
ence 10 such mandates as those, for disobedi-
ence OF which the respondents are rOw
here, such fac and Imprisonment are, we
submit, by law required to be forthwith in,
iiicted, TO an extent sufficient 10 insure
prompt compliance with those mandates
else, because OF the neglect TO enforce the
law in that respect, justice will be delayed
and TO delay justsce is, we submit, mat
ter not to be taken into consideration by
either court or counsel.
II the rights Of parties may he disre,
garded, then wherefore are there Courts Of
laws?
This nation owes 10 these plaintiffs all
such orders as are required II compel a
performance Of Ihe duties Of these respozd.
ents specified in the WRIT, and claiming
that from the nation, which
has creaei this Court and
given it power TO Tepresent this nation, and
to compel obedience 10 it's behests in that
respect, We now appeal TO this court to
make such orders az will secure the rights
of these plaintiffs, without further delay.
This We ask as MISTER OF right, as to
which we claim the court has NJ discretion
TO either refuse or delay.
Thankful for the magnaBimfty OF thia
State, which By the ensc;ment Of some re-
cent lava, has in substance, made iEvidiOu-
distinctIoDs between diii.Ten; debt, and
practically said TO the people OF some coun
ties that they might psy 10 some OF then
creditors ooe-half Of what they owe, and "a
other creditors sli, We suggest that such
epea-haRd.d generosity ought not to operate
on :he cCur; a reason Tor neglecunS Il
enforce creditors rights shown by jItg-
ments Of this court TO be as valid and obi
gatury claims as any Of those favored nv
the Legislature or the respondents. The
law sbhors fivoritism as between creditors
The delays asked for, favor it if loved. y
by reference TO a case 7clied by the
Supreme Court Of the United States in
1850, Commissioners, etc vs.. Aspinwail, ei
al, 81 Howard, $40, it will be seen that IL
would have teea proper fol
the court to have Issued
the peremtories in 1877, and OF course then
enforced them. There had then previously
been much delay in many OF the cases As
We understand this matter, the people have
been encouraged 10 their attempted Tepudii-
lions OF part OF thsir debts by the neglect Of
the Court to give creditors such remedies IS
il might, in violation Of the rule that Jus,
tee shall MT Be deL1yef or sid. By these de
iays, The people, the sovereigns in this coun'
try, are, we think, in substance, trying to
sell justice by di-coun;ing creditors claims
rather than enfor, e the processof the Court
by the means given SO to DO, and the Court
moves slowly in this matter. The last
postYonement wss made anding
the terms OF Office of some OF the delin
quent city officials expire in April. How
long the Court will fail TO Use such means
within its power as will result in the per.
Torrance Of the duties Of the officials, re-
| p, aims q cgpundrum