The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1889-04-13
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The Issue OF Railway Bonds and Subse-

The Issue OF Railway Bonds and Subse-
quent Reputation.
In the year 1855 the city of Water
town voted $4,000 in bonds, as aid to
the Milwaukee & Watertown Railroad.
In 1856, that city voted 100000 of bonds
in aid of the WatertoWn & Madison
railroad, and 100000 of bonds in
aid of the Chicago, st. Paul q
Fond du Lac Railway, now part of the
North-W Western Railroad. When the
Chicago, st. Paul & Fond du Lac was
sold out, and the Northwestern organ
lied, the latter company made provis-
ion in the shape of trust fund in stock
for taking up the bonds voted in aid of
that company, and those are nearly all
thus taken up. In several ways, some
where between $4,000 and $100,0C0 of
these other bonds have been taken
up, and there is now outstanding,
OF the debt that isn't controlled by the
city of Watertown, between $500, ,0O0and
100000. Immediately after the failure
of the railway companies, IN 1887 and
1853, the city of Watertown defaulted,
and has never since pretended to pay
even the interest on the bonds. Judg
ments began to be obtained against the
city from 1859 to 1862, and many of the
coupons were put in judgment.
When the bonds were issued, the city
could be sued by serving process either
upon the mayor or clerk OF the city, and
the law remained so till about 1870,
when it was changed so as to require
service to be made both on the mayor
and clerk. By subsequent enactments
of the legislature, however, the munich
pal affairs of Watertown could all be
carried on without a mayor or common
council, everything except the levying
of taxes being done by the board
of street commissioners, and the
taxes for ordinary purposes being
levied by chapter 204 of 1871. 1t
is thus competent for the city to avoid
being sued, and when sued and judg
ment is recovered, 1t is competent for
all the affairs of the city to be conduct
ed at the same time, there being in ex-
istence no officers who can levy a tax to
pay Judgment.
Early IN 1883 certain stockholders,
conceiving that by reason of this I'M
possibility of obtaining service, that
the statute of limitation had not run
against the city, brought suit before
Judge Bum, alleging this imposslbility
to serve process as reason why the
statute should not run. The court held
that the statute did run on the bonds,
Notwithstanding the holder of them was
unable to sue.
Upon the hearing of these several
cases, the point was made that the sew
eral acts of the Legislature which have
enabled the city to escape process, and
avoid the levying of taxes, were uncon-
stitutional under the bill of rights
of the state, which provides
that every person is entitled to GER
tain remedy in the laws for all in
iuries or wrongs he may receive in
his person, property or character, and
under the clause in the constitution of
the United States. which provides that
no state shall pass any law impairing
obligations of contracts.
Judge Bum held these several stat
utes valid, notwithstanding these consti-
tutional provisions, thus deciding that
the CITY of Watertown could, with the
aid OF th9 laws, repudiate its Indebted
ness.