Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1902-12-09
MUST DEVISE OTHER WAY
Says Parallel Case Has Been
Found.
QUOTES A DECISION OF YEARS AGO
Thinks the City Council is at Sea in
the Matter Now So Far AS TAX
ing 1t to the Higher Court Is
Concerned.
#E9.E.EET
From Saturdays Daily.

From Saturdays Daily
Now comes Felix T. Hughes, a
prominent lawyer of Keokuk, and
. with few strokes of his pen sends
glimmering the hopes of Ottumwa as
to her proposed waterworls. Accord
ing to Mr.. Hughes there is no appeal
possible from the decision of the Unit
ed States circuit court of Appeals, and
Ottumwa must figure out some other
way than has yet been devised for get
ting her waterworks. Evidently some
philanthropist will have to give OF
tumwa a system of waterworks after
the fashion of Andrew Carnegie in
giving away libraries or the city will
have to go without water entirely
And it isn't easy to imagine dry OF
tumwa.
Mr.. Hughes, in letter to the Keo-
kuk Gate City today, cites two cases
which he says are parallel with the
one at hand and says that both these
declare Ottumwa to be checkmated
80 far as her present plan for water
works system is concerned His letter
is as follows:
To the Editor of the Gate City:
"Quite controversy has arisen in
this state over the recent decision of
Judge Mcpherson in the Ottumwa
waterworks case, which decision has
been confirmed by the United States
circuit court of appeals. 1t is quite
important to the people of this state.
As I understand. Judge Mcpherson
first held the contract void as it was
an attempt to bond the city for money
to construct and operate a system of
waterworks in that city, and that the
ordinance would create debt in ev-
cess of the five per cent limit as fixed
by the constitution of this state.
While that case was pending on APP
peal the supreme court of Iowa held
the act of the city council valid, max
ing conflict of opinion between the
state and federal courts. Some law
yers of the state are claiming that the
decision of the supreme court will pre-,
vail, and | see my friend, General
Glasgow, of Burlington, is of that opin-
lon, and is reported as saying that the
city may proceed in violation of the
federal court injunction, and if its
efforts should be arrested for con.
tempt by the federal court, such ar.
rest would amount to nothing, be-.
cause a writ of habeas corpus could be
obtained from the state supreme court
and the accused thereon at once set
at liberty.
hove had quite an experience In
such matters, growing ont of munich
pal bonds and contracts, and am OF
the opinion that such habeas corpus
proceedings could not prevail.
These questions were practically
( settled about thirty-five years ago ii
the federal supreme court in the cases
from this city and Johnson county il
this state.
U. S. VS.. Keokuk, 6 Wal. 514.
riggs VS.. Johnson county, Id 1855.
Here the city council of Keokuk was
enJolned By the state court from levy
ing tax to pay judgment of the
federal court before the latter cour
issued its mandate, yet the state Off
GERS We're compelled to ignore the in
junction and obey the federal court.
The state and federal courts in thei,
spheres of action are independent O
any such control"
When the federal and state courts
conflict the latter must yield.
The FEDERAL courts have power to is
Sue all writs which are necessary fo,
the exercises of their respective iuris
dictions. 103 u. S. 494. The state
court would be powerless to take tn,
officers from the federal court through
It's writ of habeas corpus, or other
wise.
Now word about state and fedora
courts constituting state laws and con
stitutions. The federal courts are ney
er bound by the decisions of the stat
courts. For the sake of harmony an,
to avoid confusion the courts of tn
sMnited States will lean towards al
agreement with the views of the stat
courts if the question seems to then
balanced with doubt, and where, how
ever, by a certain course of decision
of the state courts certain rules o
property, the courts of the Unite
States always regard such rules as al
thclitative declarations of what TIL
law is.
The very object of giving the ne
tional courts jurisdiction to administe
the law of the states, in controversial
between citizens of different states
was to institute tribunals which ar
supposed to be unaffected by local pre-
1ufiee. 1t therefore becomes thei
duty to exercise an independent juds
ment In all cases not foreclosed as BIZ
fore stated by previous adjudication
And in all cases Of commercial la
and general Jurisprudence they a