Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-04-03
The COUNTY MUST PAY
Judge Burnham Makes an I'm.
portant Ruling in the Sol
diers' Bounty Case.
County Must Turn Over to Court
$500 for Distribution
Among Veterans.
Court Holds the Money Was a
Trust Fund and Not to Be
Diverted.

| An opinion was rendered in the sol
diers bounty case by Judge Burnham
this morning. and was favorable to the
plaintiffs The action is entitled Z. n.
Brock against the board of supervisors
of Marshall county ct al, and has been
pending for some time, having been
submitted womonths ago. Judge Burn
ham holds that the county has fund OF
$500 which must be turned over 10 the
court, subject to the claims of the Mar
shall county soldiers entitled to It's
benefits: then if any remains it can be
diverted to other uses.
| C. H. Brock, with twenty-three other
Marshallf county veterans, filed their
claims against the county and the
claims We're rejected by the board. on
the theory that they were outlawed ana
| that the balance of the fund raised by
the special tax, amounting to over w.
| 500. had ceased to exist, having been
transferred to another fund. In Ccto-
Der, 1862, in accordance with a special
act of the legislature, the supervisors or
| this county with those of other coqn-
| ties in the state, levied special tax for
the payment of bounties to soldiers VINO
would enlist for service. This tax was
raised eact, year until 1868. Che claims
| of many OF the soldiers We're paid, but
some of those who enlisted, including
those who have fled their claims
against this county, We're not aware OF
or forgot all about the existence of the
bounty fund. The supervisors. several
years later transferred the money re-
naming in the bounty fund to the gen
eral fund, and it was not until about
one year ago that some of the veterans
became aware that they might be en-
titled to recover at this late day. The
present suit resulted.
Judge E,lrnham says there are sew
eral questions in the case yet to be adj
Indicated, including the disposal of the
balance Of the fund after all claims are
paid, if such balance remains. He fur
Their holds that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to recover interest on the
bounty, for the reason that their claims
were not on file.
The court in announcing its opinion
| in the case said substantially as fol-
lows:
''rhe case OF C. H. Brock VS.. Marshall
county, the county auditor and the
board of supervisors, presents some
very interesting questions, and If in the
first initial proceeding there was au-
thority for doing all that was done.
there might be some question as to how
this should be determined If the strict
legal rules were applied to it, but In
view of the character of the action
taken by the board OF supervisors at
that time and the people of this county,
If it had been presented at the proper
time and in the proper way and by the
proper parties there might have been
because they did 1t, ais believe, from
a patriotic motive and to sustain the
government in a life and death struggle.
some of the rules that might apply I
dc not think would apply in case OF
this character.
I'm the year 1863 and for several
years thereafter the board of super
visors of this county levied a special
tax upon the people of this county for
a special purpose-to raise a fund to
give to those who enlisted under the
call of the president bounty for such
enlistment. Now, that was done regard
less of who had enlisted and was en-
titled to it or who might enlist, either
from patriotic motives or for the pur-
poses of getting this bounty, and it was
a sort Of hardly like to put it on the
ground reimbursement; in one sense it
was q reward, saying to these men II
you will enlist and 60 and fight the bat
ties of the country we will give you SO
much money / do not believe. If any
one had been of that disposition at that
time to contest this tax, 1t would have
been good. do not believe there was
any authority whatever for levying this
tax for this purpose at that time, that
is, any constitutional authority. / think
If 1t had been contested that even tho
the Legislature might have done some
thing to aid it, the whole basis would
have been unconstitutional; but we
have nothing to do with that. The peo-
pie of this county submitted to this
levy; they paid it cheerfully. and the
fund of s50,426.34 was levied and col
lected upon the people of this county
and they paid 1t cheerfully into the
treasury of this county. OF that sum
there had been disbursed up to the June
meeting, 1868. Of the board, all but the
sum of sS,569.84; that amount of that
fund still remained in the hands of the
treasury To whom did it belong? 1t
certainly did not belong to the county.
It was not levied to aid in discharging
any Of the obligations of the county.
If there was no authority for 1t, none
but those who paid it in could complain.
The county could not then or cannot
now raise that question as to whether
or not there was authority to levy and
raise this money. 1t was then special
fund raised for the purpose of paying a
reward to those who enlisted under this
call. Now did the board of supervisors
have any right to transfer that fund as
they did to the county fund? AS said
before, 1T was not raised for the county
in any way. 1t was not to meet any
obligation of the county. Under all the
authorities that have been able to
find and that have been cited in a case
of this kind, the courts place such
fund SD raised and in the hands of a
county officer, as q trust fund and the
county officer who received it is simply
receiving it as trust fund for the pur-
pose of distribution to the beneficiaries
Now, no one, as l said before, but the
persons who paid this money in have
VI rt,f ie,,,4 .av,