Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1881-07-14

enact the law, the members are alone
responsible to the people for the hon
esty, purity and wisdom of their legis.
lative." He says that in the absence
of decision by our Supreme Court on
the point, he follows the law as stated
in the elementary books of acknowl-
edged authors and the decisions OF
other States. But he adds:
OF course l am not able to say what
our Supreme Court may or should
do-whether this will agree to the de
cisions of other States, or determine
that case has now come before them
which demands departure, may
say, that if the facts stated in the
bill are true and the jurisdiction is
ever to be entertained, now is the
time and here is the case.
And again:
The surest and MIST speedy way to
SOW the seeds of communism and re-
pudiation broadcast among the people
is to attempt to place obligations or
burdens upon them through fraud and
corruption. If obligations OF a pub
| lie character are expected to be met
by the people 10 good faith, they must
| be fair and honestly imposed.
He clearly iDtimates that the sec
ton of the act which makes coupons
receivablefor taxesis unconstitutional,
but says that even if this is so, it does
not necessarily destroy the whole act,
and holds that the act does not inter-
fere with the payment Of interest on
the school fund. Towards the con.
clusion he says:
1t is insisted that | should not dis
solve this injunction on this motion,
but should allow it to remain in force
until the hearing. | understand the
rule to be that the courts should not
dissolve preliminary injunction on
motion where questions of law are in
volved, unless the questions OF law are
plain beyond a reasonable doubt-or
to state the matter differently, the
court will not dissolve the injunction
on motion in all cases where the court
would dismiss the bill on motion for
want of equities, or would sustain a
demurrer to the whole bill-the reason
heing that in cases where the bill dis
missed on motion of demurrer the
injunction would remain in force until
the case could be heard in the Supreme
Court, and in the case where the in
junction was dissolved on motion the
complainant, if he succeeded in the
Supreme Court, might be seriously
injured by the dissolution OF the
injunction.
/ am satisfied that the law is as |
have held it as against these complain
ants, but l do not know that can say
that it is plain beyond a reasonable
Doubt do not wish to hear the case
again on motion to dismiss or on a
demurrer should be satisfied to
dismiss the bill for want Of equity, or
on demurrer to The whole bill, or on
demurrer to the revenue parts of the
bill. | am unable to see how any one
can be injured, if the injunc
ton remains in fUrce until the
cause can be heard in the Supreme
Court, if the complainants wish
to carry the case there, so far as the
State is concerned, interest at six per
cent cleared. at the time fixed in the
act. The taxes have already been
levied and are at times collected to
pay the interest on the bonds to be
issued. These defendants may bede
layed in the collection of the fees
allowed them for the duties required
in the act, but they caR live through
that. In view Of the large amount in
this suit. and the great interest taken
in it by the people of the State, and
that the injunction is the very life of
the bill, and in view of the fact that
it is better than the questions
in the suit, if the compliments 50 de-
sire, should be passed upon by the
Supreme Court. ! have come to the
conclusions that it is my duty, not
only to dissolve the injunction, but at
the same time dismiss the bill for
want Of equity on the face Of the bill.
Inasmuch as it was stated in the
argument that the injunction in this
case had been imprOvidently granted,
and without any ground, or even
shadow of ground, it may not be out
of place for me to say that it is more
than likely that if the application had
been made to me for this injunction, |
should have required argument, and
upon argument refused the applica-
ton; still. it was the right Of these
compliments to apply to any judge for
the injunction, and that on account oil
location it would have been imprac.
ticable, if not impossible for. as judge
at distance, to have awaited himself
of an argument; and, inasmuoh az il
was his duty to act on the application
and the questions we're not such al
usu lily come before the courts, | can
not see how the injunction could have
been refused.