The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-29
,BR0WNSVILLE'S BONDS.
SHE MUST SETTLE FOR THOSE TAX.
ING DISTRICT BONDS.
How Her Failure to Interpose Defense
at the Proper Time Brings Down That
Terrible Writ. Mandamus-Three De-
clslons by Judge K. s. Hammond.

In the United States circuit court Judge
Hammond yesterday handed down three
decisions, two of them concerning the
bonds OF the taxing district of Browns
vile, which enterprising city, like Mem
phis, was compelled to put on the strange
arinor Of a taxing district to shield it
from the deadly mandamus.
When Judge Jackson and Judge Ham
mond decided last summer that the
scheme would not work. and that the
taxing districts could DO compelled by
mandamus to levy taxes to pay old debts,
just the same as ii there were no taxing
districts Brownsville was caught
with its old debts unsettled and
the process commenced OF forcing
that city TO pay them of. Mem
phis was more fortunate, and it speaks
well for its management that there has not
been single application for mandamus
forced TO trial since the courts decided
that the city was liable to that dreaded
writ which has given 80 much trouble.
| In one oil the cases decided yesterday
the court ordered mandamus to levy
taxes against Brownsville in favor OF John
Loague, administrator Of Baker, upon
| judgments aggregating for principal
strange part OF it is that this
mandamus is for bonds admitted TO be
invalid, and so decided by the United
| States court in the other case decided yes
terday OF Norton against the town OF
Brownsville, where the holder OF the
bonds claimed judgment for $1,000 OF the
| past due coupons. But Baker had already
| had judgments by default on his coupons
| when the other case was decided, the
agents or attorneys Of Brownsville failing
| 10 make any defense against the bonds
| when first sued, more than ten years ago.
| Judge Hammond decides that this judg-
ment by default is binding and forever
conclusive, and that the defense OF invalid
| ity OF the bonds cannot avail the taxing
district upon plea to the mandamus.
1t seems that many years ago Brownsville
| issued $4,000 TO wildcat railroad that
was never built. When the first interest
was dciaulted Baker sued and put his
claims in judgment, and other creditors
also sued and recovered judgments, the
city not making any defense. But appli-
cation was made to the Legislature to re-
peal the charter, which was done. and
Brownsville was out in the woods without
any municipal government for several
years. After Memphis tried the expert
ment and invented the taxing district
continuance Brownsville followed suit and
became taxing district.
| In the meantime other suits were brought
| on coupons and bonds by Norton and
other creditors, and then II was the new
officials employed lawyers and set up
defense that the bonds were void for want
OF legislative authority 10 issue them. II
was claimed that the new constitution OF
4 ~ Ial .hu L.. Las
under which they were issued and made
ii void. II was n close call on dates
| to got in this defense. The act OF the
Legislature authorizing the bonds was
passed in February, 1870, under the old
constitution, which required only major
ity at an election 10 authorize bonds in aid
Of wildcat or genuine railroads, whichever
they happened to be, when the bait was
held out 10 the deludcd city or town asked
Ia subscribe. The town authorities pro-
ccnded a. rapidly they could To order
the subscription 10 this wildcat enterprise,
which was never undertaken, except so far
AZ getting the bonds went, and the election
was held on the 18th OF June, 1870, aud
the bonds issued aud negotiated 10 inno-
cent holders, as they claim.
But on the 9th day Of May,
1870, the new constitution went
into effect and required a thrce-fourths
majority 10 authorize bonds. At the cleo
ton the vote In favor OF the bonds was
unanimous, which shows how anxious the
little city was TO put out Its |. q. US aud
get them upon the money markets OF
this big world. II also shows how
easy IL Is for Spectators In other
lie funds, 10 manipulate an cleo.
| ia Int 10
had boon In effect only about a month
when tho election was held. and the law
was passed before the new constitution.
The question was whether the bonds 70.
quircd majority only, or thrcc-iourths
vote. and the holders thought, ~ they had
three-ionrlh vote, tho bonds were good
But the late Judge Baxter thought other.
wisc, and declared them void. on the ground
that tho new constitution abrogated
the old law aud there was no longer any
, authority 10 issue bonds ON any majority
until n new act was passed under the new
constitution and the holders were turned
out Of court, but appealed 10 the supreme
court, where the case remains undecided
, | and viii not he reached for several years
A notable incident about this decision
IL that Il was the last Judge Baxter eve
rendered, ana was almost n death.bcc
opinion. lilo camc 10 Memphis OF
his way 10 Hot Springs and do
cidcd that case, aud In iev
DAYS died suddenly ut the lilo, Springs
/. lamcnied 10y the public everywhere a. az
4 able Judge. But before that decision
Baker had the judgments by default upor
which the mandamus Is ordered TO issue
Notwithstanding the inyalidity OF tn
bonds The taxing district will appeal b
the supreme court, aud the three case
will be heard together
4 Judge Hammond followed Judge Bax
tcr's decision In the Norton case and gav'
: Judgment In favor Of Brownsville In thu
. suit upon the couponsand bonds, but state
. In the opinion that he did this onl'
! because u vas precedent tia
b he ought 10 follow and not because h
. agreed with Judgc Baxter. lilo IL inclined
. the opinion says. 10 rule that the only ciicc
, OF tho new constitution IL 20 attach a new
Q condition 10 the power 10 issue the bond
: and not 90 abrogaio the authority 10 hold
z and that II In fact the election, by three
iourths majority, authorizes the bonds
: they might be good. But that there maj
be no conflicting decisions he yields thu
inclination and follows Judge Baxter
ruling The creditor appeals from thii
aud the whole subject Il nov In the su
prcme court for decision.
Tho other case decided was that o
Cameron against Hodges, In which the
defendant wits allowed TO amend his pcti.