644 



MISSOUKI. 



A still more important act was approved on 

 March 8th. It is entitled "An act concerning 

 the assessment, levy, and collection of taxes, 

 and the disbursement thereof." Its object is 

 to intrude the judiciary of the State into the 

 dispute between the indebted counties and 

 their creditors, and thwart the judicial collec- 

 tion of these debts by the United States courts. 

 It provides that county courts shall levy only 

 these four taxes, viz., the State revenue-tax, the 

 State interest-tax, the tax for current county 

 expenses, and the school-tax; and that no 

 other tax shall be levied unless ordered by the 

 circuit court for the county, or by the judge 

 thereof in chambers. Any county judge, or 

 other officer, who shall assess, levy, or collect, 

 or attempt to assess, levy, or collect, any other 

 tax without an order frcm the circuit court, 

 and any county officer " who shall order the 

 payment of any money, draw any warrant, or 

 pay over any money, for any other purpose 

 than the specific purpose for which the same 

 was assessed, levied, and collected, or shall in 

 any way or manner attempt so to do," shall be 

 liable to a fine of five hundred dollars and the 

 forfeiture of his office. This act is known as 

 the " Cottey law," after its author, and was 

 passed with the " emergency clause," and there- 

 fore took effect immediatelv. There existed at 

 this time a sharp and emphatic difference be- 

 tween the Supreme Court of the State and the 

 Supreme Court of the United States on the 

 validity of what are called the township rail- 

 road bonds, and also on points involving the 

 validity of some county railroad bonds. If 

 these bonds were invalid, as held by the State 

 court, the county authorities would have no 

 power, under this new measure, to levy a tax 

 to pay them, and the State Circuit Courts, 

 which follow the decisions of the State Su- 

 preme Court, would not make orders for the 

 levy of such taxes. And in cases where the 

 United States Court orders the County Court 

 to give a judgment creditor an order on the 

 general fund of the county for the interest on 

 such bonds, this law forbids the County Court 

 to obey, and it also forbids the County Trea- 

 surer to make payment of judgments or inter- 

 est on such bonds out of the general county 

 fund. In short, the measure forbids _county 

 courts to pay any bonded debt, or the interest 

 thereon, without an order from the Circuit 

 Court ; and it virtually prohibits the payment 

 of all those railroad debts which the Supreme 

 Court of the State has decided invalid, and the 

 United States Supreme Court has decided valid 

 and binding. 



The constitutionality of the act was imme- 

 diately called in question before the courts. 

 The most important case of this kind was dis- 

 cussed before the United States Circuit Court 

 in Jefferson City in March. As the same ques- 

 tions arose in cases pending in the Circuit Court 

 for the "Western District of Missouri, the Judge 

 of that Court also sat with the Judges of the 

 Eastern District to hear the arguments. There 



were six cases of mandamus on judgments 

 against Johnson County on account of bonds 

 issued. Tuesday was the day set for the Coun- 

 ty Court to make a return to the mandamus. 

 It accidentally happened that the " Cottey 

 bill," as it is called, was signed by the Gov- 

 ernor on the previous Saturday, and with an 

 emergency clause it went into immediate oper- 

 ation. The returns to the mandamus, which 

 were filed on Tuesday by the counsel for the 

 county, set up the Cottey act for a defense. 



In the argument on the constitutionality, ex- 

 Governor Reynolds explained the operation of 

 the act, and contended that it was not at all an 

 infringement of Federal jurisdiction, and that, 

 properly construed and with a proper disposi- 

 tion on the part of both the State and United 

 States courts, it would lead to a settlement of 

 the vexed question of the validity of township 

 bonds. The argument against the constitu- 

 tionality of the act was presented by Mr. 

 Shields of St. Louis, and the points he urged 

 were: 1. That the law was unconstitutional 

 because it impaired the obligation of contracts. 

 2. That the law under which the bonds in con- 

 troversy were issued provided for the levy of a 

 special tax by the County Court, in the same 

 manner as taxes are levied for county pur- 

 poses ; that the law was a part of the contract, 

 and the Legislature can not change it by giv- 

 ing the power to the Circuit Court to levy the 

 tax, because it imposed an additional cost and 

 expense on the bondholder and postponed his 

 remedy. 3. That the Cottey law virtually pro- 

 vided that the Circuit Court should levy and 

 assess the tax, thereby conferring on the ju- 

 dicial branch of the government the taxing 

 power, which is essentially a legislative power, 

 and therefore can not be delegated under the 

 Constitution to the judiciary. 4. That the 

 Constitution provides (Article X., section 1) 

 that the taxing power may be exercised by the 

 General Assembly for State purposes, and by 

 counties or other municipal corporations for 

 county and other corporate purposes ; therefore 

 the General Assembly can not delegate the 

 taxing power to the Circuit Court. 6. That 

 by section 10 of Article X. of the Constitution 

 the General Assembly shall not impose taxes 

 upon counties, cities, towns, or other munici- 

 pal corporations, or upon the inhabitants and 

 property thereof, for county, city, town, or 

 other municipal purposes, but may by general 

 law vest in the corporate authorities thereof 

 the power to collect or assess taxes for such 

 purposes. The Circuit Court being in no sense 

 a corporate authority of the county, it necessa- 

 rily follows that the Legislature has no right to 

 delegate to it authority to levy such taxes. 6. 

 That the Constitution of the United States 

 gives to the Federal Circuit Court jurisdiction 

 to determine controversies between citizens 

 of different States; and that Court having 

 rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the pending 

 case, the Legislature has no authority to pro- 

 vide for a review of such judgment by the Cir- 



