, 1891-11-14
A AX-PAYER' SUIT.
A LENGTHY OPINION AS TO HIS
RIGHTS.
The Agricultural College Case Dis
missed by the Supreme Court
Judge HOyt Dtssents.
CONTINUED from Thursday, Nov 2. ]

CONTINUED from Thursday, Nov. 12]
We are inclined to the opinion that the
right of a resident taxpayer to invoke
the interposition Of a court of equity to
compel officers of municipal corporation
to do their duty, or restrain them from
illegally increasing the burden of taxation
by squandering the public funds Of cor
ptorat1on, has received the great weight of
at least modern authority,
The doctrine on thesubject Was thus laid
down by Judge Field of the Supreme court
Of the United States: Of the Fight of resi-
dent taxpayers to invoke the interpositiOn
ola court ofequity to prevent an illegal dis
position OF moneys of the county OF the il
legal creation of debtwhich they, in com
mon with other property holders of the
county, may otherwise be ecompelIed to paw
there IS at this day no serious question,
1t will be observed, however. that this case
1allS Snort OF asserting that doctrine claim
ed mere by the respondent that courts Of
equity Will restrain the action of state Of
hcers IN matters of public concern on the
petlGlon OF a taxpayer who shows no spe-
clal interest, nor will the language or ar
gument OF the court bear any such con
struction. On the other hand, it is based
on relationship of the taxpayer to muni-
clpal corporations. In all cases reported
the restraining order has been asked against
the county, town, city or district officer.
~ 10 gu s uCu Wy Gl1S EGSpOIlQ6uU GDaG not
Wlthstanding the absence of authority,
there IS no difference in principle between
restraining county officers and state of
hcers IN matters Of public concern, on the
prayer OF a taxpayer. The principle upon
which the doctrine in regard to municipal,
or quasi municipal, corporations is based,
flows from its analogy to we'll settled doc
trlne equity governing private corporations,
where each stakeholder has an interest in
the property OF the corporation, and NAV
Interfere to protect the corporation funds
from the illegal or fraudulent acts Of its Of
hGers, but 1t is reasoning that it cannot ap-
ply to state government.
AS the fallacy of a proposition can best
be shown by distorting it, we may presume
that Il one of the departments of the state
government can be suspended at the in
stance OF a private citizen, who has not got
more than community interest in mat
ter which concerns the general public, that
every department of state can be
suspended at the same time, and the
whole machinery of government stopped,
and the very existence of the state, SO far
as the exercise of it's functionsis concerned.
destroyed. Surely such theory of prac-
tlce is not in harmony with the genius of
our government, nor will authority sane
tlOn nor public policy permit the adoption
OF rule which will authorize any number
OF volunteers who may, rightfully or
WrOngfullv, interpret the laws different
from the Interpretation put upon them by
othcers OF the state, to paralyze for time
every or any branch of state government.
1t seems to us that there is difference
In principle, and there might be a very
great difference in results; and probable
results are what the policy Of law is based
upon. 10 prevent just such results, and
to protect the interests of the public, the
statute has provided for an election by tax
payers of an officer, the attorney-general,
VKrE1 r,1x,A IL.
institute proceedings Of this kind, In the
act creating the office of attorney-general,
and defining his duties in the law of 1878,
1t is provided. among other things, that it
is his duty to force the proper application
offunds appropriated to the public institu-
tlons Of the territory; nor do we under
stand that any Of the provisions Of that
chapter have been repealed by subsequent
enactments Of the state.
The constitution provides that all laws
IN force at the time of its adoption shall
remain in force until their repeal; and
there is nothing in the provisions Of the
acJ entitled An act in relation to attor-
neys," laws of 1891, which repeals any of
the provisions of the act of 1887-88 It
might as well be held that all the terrific
Hal acts IN relation to prosecuting attor-
neys have been repealed by the same. act.
The law, then, having provided an officer
for an especial duty, it is the better policy
to submit each litigation to his guidance.
Ihls court, untrammeled by precedent or
authority in laying down politely for this
state, deems it safer to regulate the institut-
ing OF suits involving the disposition of
the revenue of the state, where no private
interests are involved, to the judgment and
discretion of the attorney general. With
this view of the case, it is not necessary to
examine other alleged errors. The de-
INJURIES should have been sustained. The
Judgment is therefore reversed and as the