Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1902-12-25
CONFLICTING DECISIONS.
Dubuque Newspaper Comments on the
Ottumwa Case.

The supreme court of Iowa having
held that the water bond issued under
the provisions of the Iowa code is not
debt, and the United States circuit
court of appeals having decided that
it is, lawyers are discussing the effects
of the decision. Correspondents of
several Iowa papers contend that the
case is one in which the federal
courts may declare the law without
regard to what the state supreme
court may have decided and that the
decision of the federal court must
prevail.
This leads the Dubuque Times to
make the following comment:
I'm Dubuque those who have had &C.
casion to examine such questions very
closely dissent from this view. They
say that the state supreme court de-
clares the public policy of the state
and the federal judiciary that of the
nation and where the two come into
contact the national policy must pre-
vail. The federal constitution pro.
vides that no state shall pass any law
impairing the obligation of contracts.
1t is the province of the federal courts
to uphold, this provision. Having found
that an, obligation issued by the mui-
nicipality and sold to the citizens Of
another state was valid under the stat
utes and the decisions of the state SUI
preme court as these stood at the time
the innocent purchaser made his in
vestment, they will disregard any law
or decision subsequently made which
would operate, if respected, to impair
the obligation to pay the bond held by
the innocent purchaser.
'"The rule is different where no OBJ
legation has been issued and the ques-
ton presented is whether it may be
issued under the laws of the state.
This is question Of state policy to
be determined by the supreme court of
the state. The federal court declares
the question according to the decis-
| ions of the supreme court of the state
as these stood when the question was
presented to the federal court. This
is what Judge Mcpherson and the
United States circuit court of appeals
undertook to do in the Ottumwa case.
They got hold of it before the other
branch of the case reached the SUI.
preme court of Iowa and therefore the
question before the court of appeals
was whether Judge McPherson's de.
cision when rendered was consistent
| with the law of Iowa at that time. 1t
| had no obligation to respect a decis.
ion by the supreme court of Iowa rem
dered after the same question had
been presented to Judge Mcpherson,
but this obligation would have existed
had the state supreme courts decis.
ion been rendered first. Its decision
respecting a question of state policy
must finally prevail
''The decisions of the supreme court
of the United States defining the
| boundaries of lands along the Missis-
sippi river illustrate its habit of rec.
ognizing the state supreme courts
right to declare the state policy. If
the land is in Illinois its boundary is
the thread or middle of the stream
and if it lies in Iowa it's boundary is
high water mark, according to decis-
ions of the supreme court of the Unit.
ed States. The explanation is that the
supreme court of Illinois has declared
one rule and the supreme court of
Iowa another"