The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-05-02
Chancellor Estes Passes Upon the
Last Case Yesterday.
The Law Must Be Strictly Con-
strued as It Is Written.
Judgment Against the Defendants
for Small Interest.
President Hadden Considers 1t an In
dorsement OF the Form of Govern
ment and the Acts OF the Ad-
ministration-All Serene.

eral Of this district, in the discharge OF
duty devolved on him by law, against the
defendants MADDEN and Lee, two OF the
police and fire commissioners Of the Tax
ing District, and A. j. Harris, the county
trustee, alleging the transportation by
them OF public funds raised for specific
PURPOSES under the laws creating the
Taxing District, and seeking 10 have such
Incorporated funds restored TO the
treasury for the purposes 90 which they
were devoted; or in the alternative for
personal decree against the defendants for
the amounts Of money thus alleged 10 have
been misar propriatcd. The bill also prays
that the court may construe the provisions
OF the law establishing tho Taxing District,
which are involved in the scope OF this
litigation, aud for a perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants from future
misrepresentation or diversions OF public
funds, and from Illegal exercise OF power
in their Office.
Il is not claimed for tho State that the
defendants have been guilty OF mala flde
in appropriating public funds 10 other than
municipal purposes; but IL Is claimed that
in violation OF the plain mandates and
prohibitions OF the Taxing District laws,
they have used funds for and devoted TO
specific purposes, to other aud distinct
municipal purposes. In fact the record
ncquiis the defendants OF all fraudulent
and self serving purposes and tho qucs-
iions raised, involve the construction Of
certain provisions OF the law, and the
exercise by the defendants OF certain
powers Hereunder.
had occasion during tho last term Of
this court 10 consider and decide, in the
case Of Mitchell W. the Taxing District ct
nj, certain features Of the laws creating the
Taxing District, and 10 my opinion In that
case, must refer as authority upon tho
points In this case that are embraced with
in lis scope. Here questions are presented
that were not adjudcatcd In the Mitchell
ease, but there are other questions that
must be resolved under the principles Of
that decision. In the discussion Of this
case the counsel for tho complaint have
been ~ full liberty 10 combat in argument
the soundncss Of the points adjudgcd In
the Mitchell case and they have exercised
this liberty, bat reconsideration Of that
opinion with The supposed new light at.
tempted 10 be thrown upon II in this argu.
iucnt has Strengthened my conviction Of
the cnlirc soundncss OF the principles then
ndjudgcd.
Moreover, the facts pertaining 10 the
practical workings Of this municipal cor
poraiion M developed by the evidence In
this Ease, satisfies me oi the wisdom Of that
decision, and that the rule OF construction
which authoriAcs "thc local government
Of the Taxing District TO Appropriate and
use for legitimate municipal purposes, the
surplus funds, after fully paying all specific
demands thereon. IL absolutely inds.
al La NHaN Ill .HH...H
lion Of the government As con.
siructod by the law, this coporiion
has substantially but ono souuo
of revenue, accorded In express terms.
which II taxes imposed upon the people.
collcciahlc buioncc year, while ils wants
are perennial and pressing from day 10
day. Besides, this revenue, on account III
dclinqucncios, Is mow or less uncertain In
amount and In The time OF ila receipts.
Under such circumstances moments ~.
Election h convincing that In the daily ad-
mmisiuiion Of the government, multilu.
din0ui demands Tor money must niitc,
which cannot be- postponed until taxes ar
collected without injury 10 the public In.
tcwEis Tho construction Of the law,
therefore, which places the surplus funds
after satisfying oil specific demands on
them, within the power Of the local gov
eminent inr pressing municipal purposes
u meet advantageous for the succ,ssiu
administration If the ailain ~ the 1aXinl
District Indeed, this record demonstrate
that bat ior the power 30 appropriate sucl
funds. SERIOUS Inconvenience nnd pmhar
ms.mCnts 30 the public Interests Woul,
have often occurred. Aud even this fan,
las been inadequate iurthr pufsing want,
at the government at various times, ana
no doubt this fact has given rIfc 10 lhl
practices that have obtained from thl
foundation II the Taxing District, aglins
which complaint l. made In this suit.
II appears lrom the evidence hem TIA
the oiiicum Of the government have a
various times met pntcins rNrrnrira hi
tho administration II its Attain. by In
curing personal responsibility In large
amounts
While, however. the public applaud the
pairi0iis motives II thcso officials, and
ihey may be readily acquitted Of Oh,
slightest m0ud Wrunv, this court can oul,
look 10 tho law, aud determine whether u,
provisions have been obcyrd. II the,
have been violated tic court must yIsi
tic civil penalties denounced against 10,
NinlaiCrs
IL y important now that the exact an,
simple question decided la the Mitchell
casc should b. stated
That case involved but one question
and That WIS tie power Of "thc local roy
eminent under tho law 10 npprlprat
and use for pressing and legitimate nunir
ipal purposes the surplus funds In IA
treasury, against which all LEGAL demand
had been satisfied. In The opinion h va
adjndecd that this power WIS not wlihl
thc limitations aud prohibitions OF th
Law. and that Il waa conferred ON n,
commissioners lmcaning. of courc, "ih
local government" without deciding VIII
oDnsliiiuied the local government IN thi
rrard, OF the node III the exercise oi th
power Tor ucHc points wcrs not In tn
eascl ns an implied and essential power.
~ lar, Therefore, A the evidence Ia thI
c'u-e shows, The due appropriation an
use by the local government oi these su
plus funds Tor strictly municipal purpose
the complainant, under Tho doctrine Of m
opinion In the Mitchell case, u not onlitlo
10 obtain relief.
To the extent stated, and no further. nj
the questions involved Ia this suit adiud
cd Ia the Mitchell case.
DO not propose 10 discuss tho facts
= they appear here, for this IL unnccusai
and would be usolcss labor. II n aui
cicnt 20 say that for the most part they n
plain and undisputod. My duty will
discharged by stating my conclusions no
very careful investigation Of these fact
and by baslng my decision on these co
While n "A true as charged In Tho I,