Public Aid — Historical. 
368 
legislature, and that in the absence of similar legislative au¬ 
thority in Wisconsin, the court could not command the marshal 
to levy such a tax in Watertown. Furthermore, the Wisconsin 
legislature had approved a section in the charter of Watertown 
providing that no real or personal property of any inhabitant of 
the city, or of any individual or corporation, shall be levied 
upon or sold by virtue of any execution to satisfy or collect any 
debt, obligation, or contract of the city. This the creditors 
pronounced unconstitutional and asserted that the legislature 
had approved repudiation by the city. Laws of the New 
England states were appealed to. In those states a judgment 
against a town may be levied upon the property of any of its 
inhabitants. The United States Supreme Court pronounced 
this to be merely local law, and delared that it is true generally 
in the United States and England that individual property is 
liable only for its proportionate amount of municipal debt. 
The Watertown case, as presented in the United States Circuit 
Court, may be reduced to two opposite theories: first, the com¬ 
plainant having established a clear legal right at law, and hav¬ 
ing demonstrated that he has no remedy there, it is the duty 
of a court of equity to devise and enforce an effectual remedy. 
This must be done through its own officers, because there are 
no others in existence capable of doing it. Second, the oppo¬ 
site theory is that the court can command only existing city 
officers to execute existing state tax laws, and if there are no such 
officers, the end of judicial power is reached. On appeal, the 
United States Supreme Court decided in favor of the second 
theory, but its position was weakened by a dissenting opinion 
in favor of the first. 1 
The case of Watertown illustrates the recklessness with which 
debts were sometimes made in the early history of railroad 
1 Rees vs. Watertown , 19 Wallace, 107. The lawyer’s briefs and court 
decision contain the material on which my statements are based. The 
Watertown Republican was naturally very jubilant over the decision. 
Considering the object for which the enormous debt was contracted, and 
the manner in which at least some of the subscriptions were secured, we 
cannot help but feel satisfaction at the outcome, even though it may have 
involved injustice to some. Interesting material is also found in Pereles 
vs. Watertown , 6 Biss., 79, and 19 Federal Cases , No. 10,980. 
