Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

accounts

This is an unlawful threat and was made for, Wait, Act. & Def. 35, 36; Cooley, Torts,!2d ed. the purpose of extorting money through fear 832. that could not be collected by legal proc- The letters sent out in the information show ess. But if the threat were even ambiguous that the claimant agency beld for a creditor a the state is entitled to introduce parol evidence claim against Post the existence and validity to explain its contents or meaning, and whether of which claim are not negatived in the init contained the alleged threat as charged is a formation, and is therefore confessed. question for the jury.

State v. Hammond, 80 Ind. 80, 41 Am. Rep. Kelley, Crim. Law & Pr. $ 919; State v. 791: Embry v. Com. 79 Ky. 439. Linthicum, 68 Mo. 66; People v. Braman, 30 The unpaid and valid claim against Post in Mich. 463: State v. Barr, supra.

the hands of the creditor or his agent or Mr. Willis H. Clark, for respondents: attorney was and is as much property as a

Penal statutes are always to be strictly con- horse or a house. Its owner possessed every strued for the benefit of the citizens. Å stat. right and attribute of ownership over it includ. ute ought to be so construed that no man who ing the right to demand and receive payment is innocent can be punished or endangered. or to advertise and sell it, as he might sell any State v. McLain, 49 Mo. App. 398; State v. other property and as

are daily McCance, 110 Mo. 398; State v. Bryant, 90 Mo. bought and sold. 534,

Reg. v. Coghlan, 4 Fost. & F. 316; McClair v. On an indictment for robbery in the first de Wilson, 18 Colo. 82; Wilson Sewing Mach. Co. gree, the prosecuting witness gave evidence v. Curry, 126 Ind. 161. tending to prove the offense, and the defendants Depriving an owner of property of one of gave evidence admitting taking money from its essential attributes is depriving him of his him by force and violence, but showing, if property within the meaning of the constitutrue, that he owed one of them $2, that they tional provision that no person shall be dedemanded it of bim, forcibly took a $5 bill prived of life, liberty, or property without due and some silver from him, and offered to give process of law. him his change over the $2, which he refused. State v. Julou, 129 Mo, 163, 29 L. R. A. The act committed was within the letter 257. of the statute ( 3530), but was it within its intention and spirit? This court ruled that if the

Gantt, P. J., delivered the opinion of the

court: evidence of defendants was true there was no offense committed and defendants should be

This is an appeal by the state from a judg

ment of the St. Louis court of criminal coracquitted.

State v. Brown, 104 Mo. 365; Broun v. State, rection, quashing an information against the 28 Ark. 126; Driscoll v. People, 47 Mich. 413. respondents. On January 17, 1896, an infor

One does not commit robbery wbo by vio- mation was filed in said court charging delence compels a debtor to pay him what he fendants with the offense of sending a threat

ening letter. It was quashed on motion of Bishop, Crim. L. S 1162; Reg. v. Ilemmings, information was filed by the assistant prose

defendants. On January 28th an amended 4 Fost. & F. 50; Reg. v. Johnson, 14 U. C. Q. cuting attorney, in words and figures as folB. 569.

lows: The statute against sending threatening letters with a view of extorting money, etc., was State of Missouri, Plaintiff, 08. Alexander Mcintended to embrace only cases where the in- Cabe, Henry S. McCabe, and H. tent is to obtain that which in justice and

M. Tileston, Defendants. equity the writer of the letter is not entitled to in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correcreceive.

tion. People v. Griffin, 2 Barb. 427; Mann v. State, Richard M. Johnson, assistant prosecuting 47 Ohio St. 556, 11 L. R. A. 656; People v. attorney of the St. Louis court of criminal Thomas, 3 Hill, 169; Rex v. Williams, 7 Car. & correction, now here in court on bebalf of the P. 354; State v. Hammond, 80 Ind. 80, 41 Am. state of Missouri, amended information makes Rep. 791; Com. v. Jones, 121 Mass. 57, 23 Am. as follows: Rep. 257; United States v. Elliott, 51 Fed. Rep. That Alexander McCabe, Henry S. McCabe, 807; Embry v. Com. 79 Ky. 439.

and H. M. Tileston, in the city of St. Louis An injury, legally speaking, consists of a aforesaid, on the 8th day of January, 1896, wrong done to a person, or in other words a unlawfully, knowingly, and maliciously did violation of his right.

send and deliver to one James Post, by United Parker v. Griswold, 17 Conn. 302, 42 Am. States mail, inclosed in one envelope, certain Dec. 739; Victor Min. Co. v. Morning Star letters, writings, printings, circulars, and cards, Min. Co. 50 Mo. App. 525; Charless v. Ran. with the name and signature of “The Claimant kin, 22, 566, 66 Am. Dec. 642; Cooley, Torts, Agency” subscribed thereto, directed to the 2d ed. 830.

said James Post by the name and description Where a party has a legal right to do a par- of Mr. James Post, signed on the back thereof. ticular act the motive with which he may as- then and there and therein threatening to insert his right will not give a right of action jure the credit and reputation of the said James even where malice prompted the act.

Post, which said letters, writings, printings, Mahan v. Brown, 13 Wend. 261, 28 Am. Dec. circulars, and cards were and are in words and 461: Auburn & (!

. Pl. Road Co. v. Dougla 88, 9 figures as follows, that is to say: N. Y. 444; Chatfield v. Wilson, 28 Vt. 49; Oc- "The Claimant Agency (Incorporated), Room cum Co. v. A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co. 34 Copp. 120, La ede Building, St. Louis, Mo., 1-18, 530; Sterenson v. Neunham, 13 C. B. 285; 1 '1896. We are authorized to publish in our

Owes.

For Sale columns the claim we hold against to inform these defendants with certainty you. You have ignored it so long, the patience as to the nature and cause of the accusation of your creditor bas become exbausted. The against them, tberein violating the provi. Claimant will contain the same in its next is. sions of the Constitution of the state of sue. We must also place every month in the Missouri and the Constitution of the United houses opposite and adjacent to your residence States of America. (7) Said information is in filty of the inclosed circulars directed to your violation of the provisions of the Constitutions address. If you are unable to settle in full, a of the state of Missouri and of the United payment will stop proceedings against you, as States of America with reference to the depriwell as publication of the debt.

vation of life, liberty, and property without Respectfully,

due process of law. (8) Said information afTbe Claimant Agency. firmatively shows that neither of these defend"Make settlement direct with tbis office. ants is guilty of any offense against the laws

"The claim of $- we hold against you of the state of Missouri such as is charged is yet unpaid. Honesty is the best policy.' against them therein. (9) Said information Call and make arrangements to settle the debt. affirmatively shows that neither of these de

"Complimentary. The Claimant Agency, fendants is guilty of any offense against the Publishers, Room 120, Laclcde Building, St. laws of the state of Missouri. (10) The names Louis. Fill out the coupon, and return to us of all material witnesses are not indorsed upon with list of accounts. We will offer for sale said information." This motion also was susten claims complimentary, and mail copy of tained, and the prosecuting attorney took all the Claimant containing same to each debtor. proper steps to have said ruling of the court Before publishing we will endeavor to obtain reviewed in this court, on the ground that the some money for you on the accounts. The decision of the cause involved ibe construction Claimant Agency

of the Constitutions of the United States and “Collection Department. Our regular mem- of this state. Mo. Const. art. 6, § 12. bersbip fee is $10.00 per year, including sub- The information was intended to charge an scription to the Claimant. Claims For Sale' offense under $ 3782, Rev. Stat. 1889, which can be inserted therein at the rate of 25 cents provides that "every person who shall knowper dame, per month, by nonmembers, ingly send or deliver any letter, writing. print

"FOR SALE-The following judgments: ing, circular, or card, with or without a name Agains! Leon D. Boucher, 1049 De Hodia- subscribed thereto or signed with a fictitious mont avenue, $24.88, for unpaid grocery bill. name, or any letter, mark, or device, threatenAgainst George W. Ferguson, 5036 Beil ave. ing to accuse any person of a crime, or to kill, pue, $64.25, for unpaid grocery bill. Against maim, or wound any person, or to do any inJobo J. McCann, 1710 Chestnut street, $29.95, jury to the person, property, credit, or reputafor uopaid grocery bill.

tion of another, though no money or property *The Claimant Agency (Incorporated), Pub- be demanded or extorted thereby, sball

, on lishers and Collectors, Room 120, Laclede conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdeBuilding, St. Louis, Mo.”

meanor.” It will be observed that tbis section, Wbich said letters, writings, printings, cir- which was numbered 1526, Rev. Stat. 1879, bas culars, and cards were sent out and delivered been amended by inserting the words “credit through tbe United States mails to the said or reputation." The St. Louis court of ap. James Post by said defendants, unlawfully, peals, in State v. Barr, 28 Mo. App. 84, in 1887 knowingly, and maliciously, for the purpose held that the sending of a letter threatening to of, and therein threatening to, in jure the credit publish a person's name in a "dead beat” book, and reputation of the said James Post, by whereby his credit would be ruined, was not bringing him into disrespect and disrepute an offense under $ 1526, Rev. Stat. 1879, bewild bis friends, neighbors, and associates, cause "credit and reputation" were not propcontrary to the forın of the statute in such erty, within the meaning of the section as it Case made and provided, and against the peace then read. It is obvious that the insertion of and digoity of the state.

"credit and reputation" in the next revision Richard M. Jobpson. after the promulgation of that decision was inAsst. Pros Atty. for St. Louis Court of Crimi- tended to cover threats of injury to the credit nal Correction.

or reputation, as well as to property or person. Subscribed and sworn to by James Post, The information sufficiently charges that the Jany. 28, 1896, before the clerk of said court. defendant sent a letter to the prosecuting wit

ness which contained circulars and writings On the same day tbe defendants filed their threatening to injure his credit among his motion to quash, in the following words: “(1) neighbors, and fully set out the means and the Said information is not sufficient in law. (2) character of the agencies which would be Said information is not sufficient in substance. adopted and employed to effectually destroy (3) Said ioformation is vague, indefinite, his credit and reputation, to wit, by placing and opcertain. (4) Several distinct charges every month in the houses opposite and adja. against these defendants are alleged in said cent to his residence fifty of the circulars ininformation in one count. (5) Tbe acts closed, directed to his address. charged against these defendants in said in- The point made that there is no allegation as formation are such as these defendants have to what the “Claimant Agency” was, or how an inherent right to do, which right is guar- defendants were connected with it, is without anteed to them, and each of them, under and force, for the reason that it is wholly immateby the Constitution of the state of Missouri, and rial whether it is a corporation or a firm name, under and by the Constitution of the United or wholly fictitious. The offense charged is States of America. (6) Said information fails I that defendants sent these threatening circulars and writings. They are guilty in lending says: “The constitutional liberty of speech themselves to this scheme of destroying the and of the press, as we understand it, implies credit and reputation of the prosecuting wit. a right to freely utter and publish whatever the Dess. They were fully advised in the infor. citizen may please, and to be protected against mation of the nature and character of the any responsibility for so doing, except so far offense with which they were charged.

as such publications, from their blasphemy, Tbey raise the question of the constitution obscenity, or scandalous character, may be a ality of the law itself. They assert that, con- public offense, or as by their falsehood and ceding they did threaten to ruin the credit and malice they may injuriously affect the standreputation of the prosecuting witness as a ing, reputation, or pecuniary interests of indibusiness man, they were guilty of no offense viduals." The Constitution grants po immuunder the laws of this state, because they say pity from punishment for criminal libels. they bad a right to do so. Let us examine this “Libel” is defined by our law as follows: "A contention. Can it be maintained that the libel is the malicious defamation of a person guaranty in the Federal and state Constitutions made public by any printing, writing, sign, of life, liberty, and property justifies any citi- picture, representation or effigy, tending to zen in threatening to destroy the credit or provoke him to wrath or expose bim to public reputation of another citizen? If it can, then batred, contenipt, or ridicule, or to deprive bim it amounts to this: that not only are ibe courts of the benefits of public coutidence and social open to bim to obtain a judgment for any sum intercourse; any malicious defamation made due bim, and the process of the law is awarded public as aforesaid designed to blacken and him to enforce tbat judgment, but in addition vilify the memory of one who is dead, and thereto be has the right to threaten the publi- tending to scandalize or provoke his surviving cation of a criminal libel whereby be may relatives and friends." Rev. Stat. 1889. - 3869. destroy his debtor's credit and reputation. As was said in State v. Armstrong, 106 Mo. 395, More iban this, he may avoid the courts alto. 13 L. R. A. 419. “The evideni purpose and getber, der rive bis debtor of all just credits and design of the defendant and the association he set offs, all lawful pleas in defense, and, employed was to publish the prosecutrix through fear of the ruin of bis credit, he may as a bad debtor, a dishonest person, who would even collect an unjust debt, or obtain an up- not pay her bonest debts, and to degrade ber conscionable advantage. The law will not in the eyes of the public and her employers, couplenance or tolerate this method of collect and as such was clearly libelous, and within ing debts. The state bas provided every | the meaning of the statute.” The proposed needed remedy, both ordinary and extraordi. mode of publishing the threatened libel clearly pary, to enforce the payment of all just debts indicates ibat it was actuated by malice. There through the agency of her couris of justice, is notbing in the Bill of Rights which would and among these remedies is not included the exonerate defendants from responsibility for right to threaten to destroy credit and reputa- such a criminal libel, if actually uttered and tion. Such a course is well calculated to pro- published, nor to shield them from the offense duce a breach of the peace. If once permited denounced against sending a letter threatening add sanctioned by the courts, it will soon to so libel him. The reason why libelous pubdegenerate into an intolerable and oppressive lications are public offenses is their direct tenwrong Upjust claims will be extorted dency to provoke breaches of the public peace from timid debtors. Honest and deserving by the injured parties, and their friends and men will be held up to scorn, and published families to acts of revenge, and the same reason as dishonest, merely because they have not the underlies statutes against leiters which threaten means with which to meet their obligations. extortion by means of libel. Such statutes do The position of counsel that, because a man is not infringe the constitutional right of any too poor or unable to meet all his obligations law-abiding citizen. Communications of ibis as soon as due, no wrong can come to him by cbaracter, with the intention of extorting publishing his inability to do so, in the most money, bave been the common subjects of offensive manner, cannot be countenanced by legislation both in Eogland and the states of tbis court. It is alike upsound in law and ibis Union. 2 Archbold, Crim. Pr. & Pl. morals. The law does not autborize the col. p. 1060, and notes. And such laws have never lection of just debts even by the malicious been supposed to be obnoxious to freedom of threatening to injure the debtor in his person, speech, as understood in our free institutions. property. credit, or reputation. To deny him On the contrary, it is a libel on the Bill of ibe privilege of so doing in no sense deprives, Rigbts, which guarantees free speech, to assert bim of the protection of bis property rights that it was intended to protect anyone in such under the Bill of Rights or Constitution. despicable practices. State v. Goodwin, 37 La. rigboe securing treesombor speech oblich guar! Willout further elaboration, we hold that antees “tbat every person sball be free to say, the court of criminal correction erred in quashwrite, or publish whatever he will on any ing the information, and its judgment is reversed subject, being responsible for all abuse of that and the cause remanded. liberty?" Judge Cooley, in his great work on Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed. p. 518, Sherwood and Burgess, JJ., concur. 34 L. R. A.

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.

0.

Isaac LUND, Respt.,

the governor, sball deem for the best interests

of this state, and receive donations or beCHIPPEWA COUNTY et al., Appts. quests which may be made for its mainte

dance and support; that the site selected shall (........ Wis.........)

comprise not less than 200 acres of land pos

sessing good facilities for drainage and sew1. Counties are municipalities within the erage, and an abundant supply of pure water; meaning of Laws 1895, chap. 138, authorizing that municipalities of this state are hereby municipalities to make donations to the state empowered to make the donations herein menhome for the feeble-minded.

tioned for the establishment and building of 2. Implied power to issue bonds is given such a home. (2) That the general super

to a county ng authority to make a donation "of vision and government of the home shall be money or other securities " for the benefit of a vested in the state board of control, pursuant state home for the feeble-minded.

to tbe law creating aod defining the duties 3. Donations by a county, made merely of said board, and they sball establish a sys

to secure a site for a state institution for the tem of government for the institution, and feeble-minded, and in no way affecting the shall make all necessary rules and regulaefficiency and successful operation of the insti- tions for enforcing discipline, imparting intution when established, are not against public struction, preserving health, and for the proper

policy. 4. The constitutional rule of uniform that they shall appoint a superintendent, a

care and training of the persons in said bome; ity in taxation is not violated by a statute

matron, and such other officers, teacbers, and authorizing a county to make a donation to secure the location of a state institution within employees as shall be necessary, who shall sev. the county, although that county as well as erally hold their offices or places during the others will be taxed for its maintenance.

pleasure of the board. (3) That all feeble5. The use of county funds to make a minded, epileptic, and idiotic persons, residonation to a state institution for the dents of the state, or any such persons found feeble-minded in order to secure its location therein whose residence cannot be ascertained, within that county is for a public purpose, and may be admitted to said bome, and receive may be authorized by the legislature.

the benefit thereof, free of charge, subject to

such rules and regulations as may be made by (June 19, 1896.)

the said board of control; tbat they shall adopt

and publish a schedule of maximum charges the Circuit Court for Chippewa County placed in the home, but who shall not be entioverruling a demurrer to the complaint in an iled to be admitted or kept free of charge; action brought to enjoin the issuance and sale provided, that all provisions of cbap. 32, Rev. of certain county bonds. Reversed.

Stat, relating to the support of insane persons,

and the liability of counties therefor, shall also Statement by Cassoday, Ch. J.:

apply, as far as practicable, to persons admitIt appears from the complaint, and chapter ted to the home for feeble-minded. (4) That 138, Laws 1895, therein referred to, entitled said home shall be organized into three de"An act to Establish a Home for the Custody, partments, as follows: First, a school deTraining, and Education of the Feeble-Minded, partment for the educable grades or classes; Epileptic, and Idiotic, and to Appropriate Cer second, a custodial department for the belpless tain Sums of Money therein Named,” and and lower types; third, such other departwhich was published and went into effect ments or colonies as the needs of the instituApril 9, 1895, and which act, among other tion may require. (5) That as soon as practithings, provided in effect that there is cable such trades and manual industries as are hereby created and established, for the care, adapted to these several departments shall be custody, and training of the feeble-minded; introduced and established by the state board epileptic, and idiotic of this state, an institu of control. (6) That some time prior to No. tion to be koown as “The Wisconsin Home vember 19, 1895, the state board of control lofor the Feeble Minded;” (1) That the state cated said home at Chippewa Falls; tbat the board of control select a suitable site for such place of said location is the extreme sontberly a home, and have power to receive proposals end of the county: that the board of superfor a donation of land to the state for such | visors for Chippewa county at its regular ansite, and to receive the same by gift, or to pur- i nual meeting held November 19, 1895, passed chase such site; that they may receive pro- an ordinance entitled “An ordinance to proposals for donations of money or other securi- vide for the donation of certain money to the ties, in bebalf of this state, for the benefit of Wisconsin Home for the Feeble-Minded, and such bome; that they may locate the same, to provide for the issue of county bonds thereby and with the consent of the governor of for;" that the ordinance was duly published as the state, at such point as they, together with | required by law November 20, 1895; that pur

A

NOTE.-The effect of a gift to the public as brib- What are public purposes for which public money ery, when made to obtain the location of county may properly be used is the subject of a note to buildings or to obtain some other public improve- Daggett v. Colgan (Cal.) 14 L. R. A. 474. See, on ment, is the subject of a note to State, North Orange the same question, Baltimore v. Keeley Institute Baptist Church, v. Orange (N. J.) 14 L. R. A. 62. (Md.) 7 L. R. A. 646. See, in addition, Ayres y. Moan (Neb.) 15 L. R. A.501.

suant to and by virtue of that ordinance the 101 U. S. 407, 25 L. ed. 1015; Hensley Twp. v. defendants Firth and Sharp, as county clerk People, 84 III. 544. and chairman of the board of supervisors, In Wasson v. Wayne County Comrs. supra, threatened 10. and were about to issue and ex: the court cites as authority to sustain its deecute, in ibeir official capacity as such clerk cisions the cases of State, Board of Edu., v. and chairman, in bebalf of the county, twelve Haben, 22 Wis. 661; Livingston County negotiable bonds of the face value of $1,000 Supers. v. Weider, supra; Sleight v. People, each, and one negotiable bond of the face Weller Prop. 74 III. 47. value of $700, bearing interest at the rate of 5 The constitutionality of this act is sustained per cent per apnum, payable annually, and the by Livingston County v. Darlington, 101 U. S. principal sums to be evidenced by such bonds 407, 25 L. ed. 1015; Brodhead v. Milwaukee. 19 to be made payable five years from that date, Wis. 625, 88_Am. Dec. 711; Speer v. Blairsand tbut the treasurer of ihe county, Henry ville School Directors, 50 Pa. 150; State, McGoetz, bas advertised for sale, and threatened Curdy, v. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664, 9 Am. Rep. to sell, said bonds, December 5, 1895, at public 622; Curtis v. Whipple, 24 Wis. 350; Knowlauction, to the big best bidder; that December ton y. Rock County Supers. 9 Wis. 410; Soens 4, 1895, the plaintiff, a resident and freeholder v. Racine, 10 Wis. 271; Hasbrouck v. Miland taxpayer of Chippewa county, comwaukee, 13 Wis. 38, 80 Am. Dec. 718; Whitmenced this action in bebalf of himself and all ing v. Sheyboygan & F. du L. R. Co. 25 Wis. other taxpayers of that county, against the 167, 3 Am. Rep. 30. county, its treasurer, clerk, and chairman of , Mr. T. F. Frawley, with Mr. C. T. its board of supervisors, and in his complaiot Bundy, for respondent: alleged, in effect, the facts stated, and giving a Tbe court, at the instance of a taxpayer, copy of said ordinance, and also alleged, in will enjoin the issue and sale of bonds for an effect, that the county clerk tbreatened to and illegal or unlawful purpose or when issued would insert $3,750 annually in the tax roll of without authority of law; and will enjoin the the county for five years, beginning with 1896, levy of a tax not authorized by law, or one and would, unless restrained, levy the same wbich violates a constitutional provision. against all the taxable property of the county High, Inj. Ss 1283, 1299; Wright v. Bishop, for the purpose of paying said bonds; that said 88 III. 302; Curtenius v. Hoyt, 37 Mich. 583; ordinance was and is illegal and void; that the Foster v. Kenosha, 12 Wis. 617; Lawson v. appropriation therein contained for the pay. Schnellen, 33 Wis. 288; Willard v. Comstock, ment of said bonds was and is wholly without 58 Wis. 566, 46 Am. Rep. 657. authority of law, in that the county board Chapter 138 of the Laws of 1895, authorizhad no legal authority to create an indebted-ing “the municipalities of this state to make ness of the county for the purposes men the donations therein mentioned," does not tioned; that the plaintiff's taxes, and the authorize a county to make such donations; a taxes of all other taxpayers of the county, county is not a municipality. would be largely increased by reason of Evc. Brittanica, Municipality, 1 Dill. Mun. such illegal appropriation; and tbat they Corp. SS 22-27; 1 Desty, Taxn. $$ 97-99; would thereby suffer irreparable loss and Cooley, Const. Lim. $$ 240, 241; Waltham v. injury. The plaintiff prayed judgment that Kemper, 55 Ill. 346, 8 Ain. Rep. 6.52; Loril. the ordinance, and all proceediogs under and lard v. Monroe, 11 N.Y. 392, 62 Àm. Dec. 120; by viriue thereof, be set aside and declared Williamsport v. Com., Bair, 84 Pa 499, 24 null and void; that the defendants named and Am. Rep. 208; Norton v. Peck, 3 Wis. 714; their successors in office, be perpetually re- Eaton v. Manitowoc County Supers. 44 Wis. strained and enjoined from enforcing the same. 489; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Oconto, 50 To such complaint the defendants demurred Wis. 195, 36 Am. Rep. 840; Smith v. Sherry, on the ground that it did not state a cause of 50 Wis. 213; Cathcart v. Comstock, 56 Wis. action. From the order overruling that de- 609; State, Hiles, v. Wood County Supers. 61 murrer, the defendants bring this appeal. Wis. 200.

Chapter 138, Laws of 1895, contravenes $ 1, Messrs. W. R. Hoyt and L. J. Rusk, art. 8, of the Constitution of Wisconsin, and for appellants:

is void. The county is a municipality within the act. The legislature has no power to lery a tax Norton v. Peck, 3 Wis 714; Eaton v. Manito- on the property of Chippewa county sepawor County Supers. 44 W is. 489; State v. Hogue, rately from the taxable property of the rest of 71 Wis. 384; Bookhout v. State, 66 Wis. 415. the state, for a state purpose, without the con

The county board of supervisors had au- sent of the people of Chippewa county. thority to issue bonds.

Cooley, Const. Lim. 283; Cooley, Taxn. Mills v. Glerson, 11 Wis. 470, 78 Am. Dec. 140, 142; Dorgan v. Boston, 12 Allen, 223; 721; Clark v. Janesville, 10 Wis. 136; State v. Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 146, 3 Am. Madison, 7 Wis. 688; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. 4th Rep. 615; Ex parte Marshall, 64 Ala. 266; ed. Ş 118; Beach, Mun. Corp. $ 835; La Pointe State, McCurdy, v. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664, 9 Supers. v. O'Malley, 47 Wis. 332.

Am. Rep. 622; State, Board of Edu., v. Haben, The unconstitutionality of the act is sus- 22 Wis. 660. tained by only two decisions.

The entire taxing power is vested in the Liringston County Supers. v. Weider, 64 Ill. legislature, which can, in proper cases and for 427; Wasson v. Wayne County Comrs. 49 Obio certain purposes, delegate such power to the St. 6:2, 17 L R. A 795.

political subdivisions of the state. Such politLicingston County Supers. v. Weider, supra, icul subdivisions bave no inherent power to bas been overruled in Burr v. Carbondale, 76 levy a tax for any purpose, but have such only III. 455, and Livingston County v. Darlington, I as is delegated to them by the legislature.

« ForrigeFortsett »