The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1901-10-05
cent on the assessed valuation. In
order to sustain this objection it was

| uSCSSodIy w inquire llc SpSCldl III
provement bonds, so called, amount
ing to over one million dollars, as a
general obligation against the city
The Fowler action was tried in the
! Circuit Court before Hon. r. ID. Mar
shall, who was then Circuit Judge. and
/ he held that the special Improvement
bonds were not general city liability
and therefore that the city was not
indebted in excess of the constitution
al limit and therefore that the con-
templaled issuing of bonds would not
he enjoined
An appeal was taken from this de-
cision to the Supreme Court of the
State of Wisconsin and the case is
reported in the S5th Wisconsin, at
page All. The Supreme Court re-
versed the decision of Judge Marshall
and held that these SO called special
Improvement bonds were in reality
general bonds; that is there was a
general liability upon the part of the
city for their payment; that the city
was indebted beyond the constitutions
al limit and the contemplated issue of
bonds was enjoined. This was the
! opinion, however, of but three judges,
orion, Cassoday and Lyon. Judge
WinsloW filed dissenting opinion and
Judge Pinney took no part in the de-
cisior of The case.
The decision of the Supreme Court
was acquiesed in by the city and its
contemplated issue of bonds were
never put upon the market The
pond holder was not party to this
acJIon but by the decision, his bonds,
which he had always considered as
special bond, were Immediately raised
to the dignity of general bond. The
decision never met with the approval
of the bar generally from legal
standpoint but everyone recognized it
as being necessary at the time to stop
the reckless improvement of streets.
The special Improvement taxes
which were levied against the proper
ty benefited to pay these bonds, were
paid for one or two years and the
money thus collected by the city was
placed in the banks to meet the bonds
as they became due. Then the panic
came. The banks in which the money
had been placed, failed; property
owners ceased paying their taxes;
suits were commenced to enjoin their
collection, and when the bonds be-
came due the city was not only un-
able to collect the special improve
ment taxes levied to pay the same
but had lost in the banks the amount
that had been paid. The bond holders
were pressing the city for the pay
ment of the bonds. The city had no
money in which to pay; something
must be done. A special act was
passed by the Legislature in 1897,
authorizing the city to extend or ex-
change these bonds. Under the power
thus given, large numbers of these
bonds were extended or exchanged.
The extended bonds provided that if
default should be made in the paw
ment OF interest for six months, the
holder of the bond should have the
option to declare the whole amount of
the bond again due and be entitled to
immediate payment thereof The in
terest which became due on these
extended bonds in January, 1901, was
not paid; neither was the interest
which became due in July, 1901
Thereupon large number of holders
OF these extended bonds exercised
their option and declared the whole
bond due and numerous actions were
brough against the city to enforce pay
ment. The city filed its answer in these
suits alleging: first, that these bonds
were not general bond notWithstand
ing the deslslon of the Supreme Court
or The State of Wisconsin and second
that II they were general bond then
they were void because the city did
not, at or before the time Of mourning
the Indebtedness, ''provide for the
collection of direct annual tax suffici-
ent to pay the interest as it fell due
and also to pay and discharge the
principal within twenty yearsnas pro-
vided by the admend to Section
), Article IL OF the Constitution of the
State of Wisconsin. Judge Bum of
the United States District Court dir
ected verdict in favor of the city in
in action of King VS. the city, tried at
LaCross on the 25th day of September.
He held that these bonds were void
az general bonds because the city did
not provide for the collection of direct
annual tax to pay the principal and
interest as provided by the constitu-
ton.
The effect of the decision in the case
OF Fowler against the city in the
Supreme Court of the State of Wis
consin, and King against the city,
| tried hpfnrp TpIua