Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-08-19
Judge F. M. Hunter in Dis
trict Court Makes
Known His Ruling,
INJUNCTION ISSUED
IN VAN buren, CASE
Auditor and County 9th
Gals Restrained From
Extending Levy.

Judge Francis NJ. Hunter Of the DIS
irict court today made known MS
ruling in the case involving an IN
iu1ction to prevent the officials OF van
Buren county from extending the TAX
lew authorized by the state leglsla-
ture at its last session when plans 1or
he extension of the capitol GROUNDS
In Des Moines were adopted ana levy
Of So. 600 900 made to purchase inc
needed property.
The couN granted the application Oh
the plaintiffs and the injunction VIII
Issue. Under the agreement mace Dy
counsel the writ will be considered q
permanent one and to have 1t reversed,
the county and state authorities VIII
have to appeal to the supreme coui.
nf the state. 1t is believed that thls
course will be the one pursued.
RULING is EXHAUSTIVE
Judea Hunters ruling Is an ex-
harstiye document which reviews the
case at great length and with nucn
care. The title of the case is, John W..
Eowlev, p. l.. Davis and w. L. Lining
r,aiutjffs, against II. q. Duckworth.
auditor, r. z. Meek, county treasurer,
~ w. Norris, Charles woodrow ana
!. Kerr. members Of the board OF SUI
peryisor of Van Buren, county, oe-
PENDANTS. The plaintiffs are tax pay
er. IN Van Buren, county Of which the
defer, ants are the regularly consul
tuted county authorities. Inc CASE
was heard in Ottumwa because Judge
Hunter of this district was presumed
Ia be en- vacation but by stipulation
the parties interested agreed tnat tne
hearing should he considered as
though in open slrt in term time ana
"a a, plv on bearing for permanent
injunction.
The e,a.ntifrs set forth in their pleas
that The state lcglslatrra rassed "hat
has become kn,wn 90 the caplto'
tGrcun lis extension BIZ, mea'F'I.s
.nropesing that the s'atn h,tv ai,oI. -
acres Of the grounds rs .,'n ling Tn"
state capito,. and thot 9 bill ~
,yt,es for the raising of he srm CT w..
0nn0NO by sreciai taXatloh hhl tlin.
II ncrort, with the bill, the officials CT
gan T,vl i. COUNTY are planning 70 ex-
Tend .tc -"~ levy ageinnt the RESIDENTS
il,nrc..r, = At the, bill Is null and void
Il. 4,gat Is eroates debt OF s2,OO0,0oo
rpatn-' tire state which is in excess OF
4 no III, .,,>at allowed in the constitu-
,,o:l .i.br..t the matter having hrst
l,eeu mt 70 vote Of the people OF
Tho state and authorized by majority
AZ ticsc voting thereon: and mat the
aytentjcr, Of .his tax on the property
IF the plaintiffs will constitute lien
8. ,heir property which will permit OF
,,.s sale if the tax is not paid. A plea
ID made that the officials be enjoined
from extending and collecting the tax.
DEFENSE NOT SPECIFIC
The reioinder OF the defendants is
that the facts set forth by the plain
tits do not entitle them to the relief
thew ask; that they seek to have the
defendants enjoined from performing
their official duty and that they have
failed to show that they have no
remedy by law.
The terms Of the act providing for
the extension of the capitol grounds
are then gone into and fully set forth.
From them 1t appears that for the pur-
pose OF purchasing additional ground
and improving the capitol confines at
once. levy Of one-half mill on the
dollar shall be collected for the next
two years( 1913 and 1910 and such
levies thereafter for eight years as
the state executive council may find
necessary to produce the required sum.
That in order to pay for land that is
purchased, the state may issue inter-
est bearing warrants or certificates in
anticipation of the tax levy and that
interest not to exceed five per cent
shall be paid on these warrants or
certificates; and sufficient tax levy
shall be made to pay the principal and
interest in ten years; that no money
from the general or other funds shall
be used for the purposes for which
the special levy is made; and in addi-
ton the act contains provisions speci-
Tying exactly how the money shall be
raised and expended.
CONSTITUTION VIOLATED
The sections OF the state constitu.
ton which the plaintiffs claim ia
violated by the act are Nos 2, and s
Of article 7. These provide in brief
that:
section 2 states: THE state may
contract debts to supply the casual
deficits or failures in revenue; or, to
meet expenses not otherwise provided
for; but the aggregate amount of such
debts. direct and contingent whether
contracted by virtue Of one or more
acts Of the gen ,ral assembly. or al
different periods of time, shall never
exceed the sum Of two hundred and
fifty thousand dollars"
Section 5 reads: Except the debts
hereinbefore specified in this article
no debt shall be hereafter contracted
by or on behalf Of this state, unless
such debt shall be authorized by some
law for some single work or object
to be distinctly specified therein; and
such law shall impose and provide fol
the collection of direct annual tax
sufficient to pay the interest on such
debt, as 1t falls due and also to pay and
discharge the principal of such debt
within twenty years of the contracting
thereof: but no such law shall take ef