Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1881-02-09
The Bond Question.

The following letter in answer to the COM
munication of j. B. Bennett, on the bond
question, appeared in a late number of
The Milwaukee Republican, and to en-
able us to "see ourselves as Others see u.s.
we place it before our readers:
The letter of Mr.. j. B. Bennett, which
appeared in The Sentinel few mornings
since, indulging in some structures on Mr..
Mariners proposed plan of special legis-
lation in favor of the holders of the de-
faulted Watertown bonds, again brings
to the notice Of the public the much vex-
ed question of municipal Indebtedness.
The case of Watertown is in all probable
ity familiar to every bondholder in the
Northwest. MIR. Bennett as good citi-
zen of Watertown teels grievously shock
ed at that city being asked to pay her
bonds with all the interest accumulate}.
thereon that the law will allow" and elo-
quently likens the unfortunate holders of
these securities to the Venetian bondhold-
er who would have his ''pound of flesh,"
willy-nilly. Watertown's case may be
hard one; undoubtedly it is. But does
that excuse her for constantly and sys-
tematically evading the law? Mr. Ben
nett evidently has firm confidence in the
dishonesty of the Wisconsin legislature,
for he closes in this remarkable manner:
'But in the meantime the city of Water
town will look with confidence to her
state legislature for that protection and
and preservation from gras. ing and un-
reasonable men that has SO far been
thrown around her and has preserv-
ed her from utter luin and ex-
tinction." The facts must be strong in
deed that would warrant legislature in
licensing reputation by allowing city
to evade the law while she stands out to
force her creditors to accede to any terms
which she may dictate. In the we'll
known case of Rees VS.. The city OF
Watertown, 10 Wallace, 107. the SUI
preme Court of the United States express
es itself very decidedly in reference to
these Watertown bonds. Rees recovered
two judgments on these bonds, issued to
the Watertown & Madison Railroad Com
pany, and issued executions thereon in
the summer of 1868. which were return
ed unsatistied. The statement of the
case goes on to show that sin November
of the same year he procured from the
United States circuit court a peremptory
writ of mandamus directing the city of
Watertown to levy and collect tax"
But before the writ could be served, q
majority of the members of the city coun-
ell resigned their offices. The manda-
mus therefore closed. In May, 1869 an
other board of aldermen having been
elected, Rees procured another writ of
mandamus to be issued, which writ was
served upon all except Holger, who was
sick. No steps were taken to comply
with the requisition of the writ, An ord
er to show cause why the aldermen
should not be punished for contempt was
obtained, and before its return day six of
The aldermen resis ned their Offices,
leaving but one more than
a quorum of whom said Hol-
ger, was one. Various procee ings were
had and various excuses made, the whole
resulting IN an order that the aldermen
should at once levy and collect the tax;
but before the order could he served on
Holger he resigned, and again the board
Was without aquorum. In October, 1870,
the plaintiff obtained third writ of man.
damus, which resulted as the former ones
had done, and by the same means on the
part of the officers of the city. A special
election was ordered to be held to fill the
vacancy of the alderman so resignng, but
no votes were Cast except three in one
ward, and the person for whom they were
cast refused to qualify. The general
truth of these facts is not denied. No
part of the deed was ever paid Rees now
procurei a new judgment and filed new
bill praying that the marshal might be
directed to satisfy his judgment out of the
private property OF the citizens. The bill
set forth also certain acts of the legisa-
ture of Wisconsin which it was alleged
were intended to aid the defendant in
evading the payment Of its debts, and
which it seemed sufficiently plain had
had that effect whatever might have been
the intent of the legislature passing them.
The City of Watertown answered that
she couldn't pay her debt; that she
had compromised part and was willing
to compromise the rest, and then pro-
ceeded to justify the acts of her officers
in evading the various writs of man.
damus by resignation. Mr.. Justice Hunt,
in delivering the opinion of the court,
disposes of these detenses in the following
summary manner. "Upon class of de
fenses interposed in the answer and the
argument it is not necessary to spend
much time. The theories upon which
they proceed are vicious. They are
based upon the idea that refusal to pay
an honest debt is justifable. A volun-
tary refusal to pay an honest debt is a
high offense in commercial community,
and is just cause of war between nations
So far as the defense rests upon these
principles we find no difficulty in over
ruling it,
But the question is not whether Water
town shall be compelled to pay her law
full debts by special legislation, but
whether the legislature should leave the
courts without effectual means to enforce
their judgments against defaulting muni-
cipsli. es generally The municipal
bond law is of recent growth-within
26 years-and is growing to be of great
Importance. The defeat in the law has
always been that against towns and
~ Al Al