MISSOURI. 



r>-\ r> 



(lit rourts of the State. 7. The judgment in 

 this case was rendered before the passage of 

 the Cottoy bill, and tbo plaintiff is entitled to 

 all remedies under the law which then exi>t'il. 

 All the judges agreed in deciding the law to be 

 unconstitutional. 



But a directly contrary decision was given 

 in Cass County. The Circuit Court of that 

 county was asked to give an order for a levy of 

 taxes to pay judgments obtained in the Fed- 

 eral Court on township bonds issued under 

 the act for the levy of a special tax. The 

 Court refused the order, on the ground that 

 the township aid act was unconstitutional, and 

 the bonds issued under it invalid. This the 

 Supreme Court of Missouri had decided, and 

 the Judge held that the decision was binding, 

 not only on the inferior courts of the State, 

 but also on the United States courts, since it 

 was a rule laid down and long recognized by 

 the United States Supreme Court that inter- 

 pretations of a State law given by the Supreme 

 Court of the State must be accepted and 

 adopted by other tribunals. The Judge of 

 Cass County referred to the opinions given in 

 the United States Circuit Court above men- 

 tioned, declaring the Cottey bill unconstitu- 

 tional because it impaired the obligation of 

 contracts, and emphatically dissented from 

 them. The Supreme Court had declared the. 

 township aid act unconstitutional; the bonds 

 issued under it, therefore, were void contracts, 

 and it was absurd, he asserted, to say that the 

 Cottey bill was unconstitutional because it im- 

 paired the obligation of void contracts. 



A judicial order was issued by the same 

 Judge (Givan) in a case from Johnson County 

 which nearly destroyed the force of the " Cot- 

 tey law." Under the provisions of the law the 

 Johnson County Court made application to 

 Judge Givan for an order for a special tax-levy 

 to pay the interest on the Normal School 

 bonds issued to secure the location of the Nor- 

 mal School at Warrensburg, and to pay certain 

 judgments of the United States Circuit Court 

 against the county on its township bonds. 

 Judge Givan considered the subject of the 

 Normal School bonds first. He held that they 

 were valid, having been decided to be so by 

 every court that had adjudicated them, and 

 the county was bound to pay the interest on 

 them. As to township bonds issued to rail- 

 roads, he thought they were invalid and void, 

 because the township aid act of 1868, under 

 which they were issued, was unconstitutional. 

 The Supreme Court of the State has positively 

 decided them to be void, which is conclusive in 

 the State's lower courts. The United States 

 Supreme Court had reached a different deci- 

 sion, but this, he thought, was because it mis- 

 understood the ruling of the State Court, which 

 it attempted to follow. If this was an applica- 

 tion for a levy to pay the bonds, or the interest 

 on them, he woold be bound to refuse it. But 

 it was a very different thing : it was an appli- 

 cation for an order to make a levy of taxes to 



pay & judgment, and he had no right, in such a 

 proceeding, to go behind the judgment, and in- 

 quire whether it was lawful or not. The judg- 

 ment of a court of competent jurisdiction can 

 not be brought up for review in a collateral 

 proceeding ; it can be set aside only upon ap- 

 peal ; an unappealed judgment by a United 

 States Circuit Court was binding and must be 

 obeyed. It was a thing adjudicated. If the 

 county thinks the judgment of the United 

 States Circuit Court in favor of the township 

 bonds wrong, its proper remedy was to appeal 

 to the United States Supreme Court. Having 

 waived this right, it was bound by the judg- 

 ment. The county was bound to pay both the 

 Normal School bonds and the judgments on 

 the township bonds ; and, therefore, he grant- 

 ed the order for the special tax-levy asked 

 for. The distinction made between an uncon- 

 stitutionally contracted debt and a judgment 

 for that debt obtained from a court of compe- 

 tent jurisdiction was not expected. 



Two or three instances will serve to show 

 the proceedings in these numerous defaulting 

 cases. A peremptory mandamus was issued 

 by the United States Court against the Judges 

 of the County Court of Knox County, de- 

 manding of the Court warrants on the general 

 revenue of the county. In the mean time the 

 " Cottey bill " was passed by the Legislature. 

 The County Judges now found themselves 

 standing between two fires, being threatened 

 by the new State law with fine and imprison- 

 ment if they issued the warrants, and by the 

 United States Court with like penalties if they 

 did not. A citizens' meeting demanded that 

 they should refuse obedience to the mandate ; 

 but the Judges, after weighing the matter care- 

 fully, decided otherwise, and issued the war- 

 rants required of them and returned a formal 

 certificate of obedience. The failure of the 

 Judges to rely on the u Cottey law " was sig- 

 nificant, as its author lived in their county. 



In the matter of Buchanan County, judg- 

 ments were obtained against the county in the 

 United States Court on its bonds issued to the 

 St. Louis and St. Joseph Railroad, and the 

 county officers were ordered to pay them ; but 

 the Treasurer used the money in the Treasury 

 for another purpose, and so the judgments 

 were left unpaid. This the Court held to be 

 an act of contempt, and, as a punishment, 

 fined the Treasurer $1,000 and ordered him to 

 be imprisoned till the judgments should be 

 paid. Under the " Cottey law " the conduct 

 of the Treasurer was right : a county officer ia 

 forbidden to pay judgments against the county, 

 or any other debt, without an order from the 

 Circuit Court of the county ; and to obey the 

 order of the United States Court at Jefferson 

 City would have incurred the penalties of the 

 Cottey law for such cases made and provided. 

 The following remark was publicly made on 

 this case : " The imprisonment of Mr. Hull (the 

 Treasurer) does not secure to the Buchanan 

 County bondholders their money, it is true; 



