Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-08-24
COUNTY MUST PAY
Retunding Bonds of This County to
the Amount Of $l78,5W
Are Valid.
pECISION BY JUDGE k'FlE
The Supreme Court in a Recent Decision
Held That Congress Gan Validate Bonds
That Had Been Declared Void
by the Court.

Judge John r. McFie has handed
down an opinion in the case of the ter
ritory of New Mexico ex rel. j. A.. Ell
ston VS.. The Board of County Commits
sioners of Santa Fe county, an action
by mandamus, whereby the relator
seeks to compel the board of county
commissioners of Santa Fe to levy a
tax for the payment of numerous inter-
est coupons upon bonds issued by the
county of Santa Fee, and for the pay
ment Of which the board has failed or
refused to levy aitax or in any way pro-
vide for their payment. Judge McFie
ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief prayed for. and a ~peremptory
writ of %mandamus will be awarded.
The bonds in question, together with
"a large number of other bonds of the
county of Santa Fee, and also bonds Of
the county of Grant, the city of Silver
City, and numerous bonds issued in
support of the territorial educational
institutions, were validated by the ff-
ty-fourth congress at it's second session.
The suit relates to only a part of the
bonds issued by the county Of Santa
Fe. The bond issue amounted to $17S,-
500, and was issued to refund $3.50, 0OJ of
bonds and overdue interest thereon. The
act of congress validating the bonds
names specifically only $172, 500 of bonds
to be validated, and the defendant
therefore insisted that the of
bonds actually issued by the county
board amounted to some $4,000 more
than the $172, 500 provided for in the act,
and that it is uncertain to which of
these bonds the valuation act applies.
Judge McFie carefully examined the
records Of the bond issue as given in
the testimony in the case, and he came
to the conclusion that it is clear that
although there may be an excessive is
sue of bonds by the county, the cou-
bonds to which they are attached can
nc. form part Of such an excessive is
sue They are readily traced to and
from a part of the original amount of
Wv IL llC NaIludLlOlI GCl,
and to which the following provision of
the refunding act Is directed: "Such
bonds having been issued in refunding
and in lieu of $3.50, 900 of bonds, and the
overdue interest thereon, of said county
of Santa Fe, heretofore issued and out
standing, are hereby validated, ap-
proved and confirmed"
Judge McFie cites the Ease of Lewis
VS.. Pima county Q55 U. s., 54), in which
suit was brought on territory Of Arizo-
ma bonds, issued like the Santa Fee
county bonds. in aid of a railroad, un-
der very much the same circumstances
as We're the bonds of Santa Fe county.
The supreme court of the United States
declared those bonds void. A similar
decision would have been rendered
probably by the supreme court of the
United States If a similar defense had
been made against the bonds of Santa
Fe county, but that Is wholly inmate
rial now on account of the more recent
decision Of the United States supreme
court in the case of Utter VS.. Franklin
172 y. S.. 416). After the Pima county
bonds had been declared invalid by the
supreme court of the United STATES,
congress enacted a law validating not
only the Pima county bonds, but a
large number of other bonds of the ter
ritory and counties of Arizona, and that
act is practically identical with the val
act concerning the bonds in
volved in this suit. After the passage
this act the holders of Pima county
bonds, which had been declared invalid
by the supreme court, brought manda-
proceedings to compel the proper
authorities of the territory of Arizona
to issue bonds in exchange for the
bonds which had been declared void, |
and the respondents in that case resist
I'd the prayer of the petition, and the |
case was finally taken to the supreme
court of the United States, because the
bonds sought to be validated by this
let were bonds which had been declared
5oid by that court. 1t is clear that the
county of Santa Fe could make no
defense than was made in the
Of the ease of Utter vs.. Frank
In, which denied the power of congress
validate void bonds. The supreme
curt of the United States, in a decision
January 3, 1899, held that 1t
vas within the power of congress to
'alidate the bonds in question issued