Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, October 15, 1876, Page 3

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: SUNDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1876—BSIXTEEN PAGE ““RIVERSIDE, Judge Williams Renders His Decision in the Deeply- Tangled Suits Which Have Been Bothering the Chancery Court for Sev- eral Months Past. The Inside History of the Greatest Land Bubble Ever Engineered in the West. Sarting on a Cash Capital of $30,- 0J0, Credit Was Obtained for $1,600,000. The Chicago & Great Western Railroad Scheme Con- ceived in Fraud. There Was Fo lntention to Baild the Load —The Bonds Issued to Fleece the Public. The City Awarded the Ownership to David A. Gage's Claims Under the Jewett Trust Deed. Childs, Stevens, Duncomb, and Badger Pictured by the Court. Judge Williams gave a long and exhaustive opinion vesterday morning In the Circuit Court, in chancery, in the Riverside Improvement ases. Anybody who Lnows anything about these cases knows that they ae, to say the least, exceedingly complicated. The decision virtu- ally covered twenty different eases and 103 psges of legal cap. Hence only 2 brief abstract can be given. The cause embraced four original and ¢ight cross-hills, au claiming aflirmative reliefin regard to property at Riverside. The interests of the complainants, chief among whom is David A. Gage, were 50 interlaced and so complicated that by agreement of counsel they were all con- sidered 25 one case. Tweunty-four counsel have been engaged in the case, which has been in the courts for some time past. The Judge, in starting out upon his decislon, referred to the curious history of Riverside, with which the public is somewhat familiar. The Improvement Company and the Water and Gae-Works Company were in debt from the start. This indebtedness constantly increased, 2nd 2l there was to pay it was the sum realized from the sale of a few bundred lots. Loans were made, cacured by mortgages ana trust-deeds upon these lots, snd the 1nost enormous interest was demanded and pald by the borrowers. Bonds in the sum of $1,600,- 000 were issued in 1871, secured by the Greenehaum trust-deed. The perpet- ual and increasing impecuniosity of the Riverside Corporations, snd the fact that they bied nothing but promises with which to pay, must have been generally understood. Many of the shifts resorted to by the skrewd manipu- lators of Riverside finances were only the at- tempt of a debtor, really insolvent, to conceal kis actusl condition from” his creditors, and to induce them, in their ignorance of present facts, tomake further advances, or at least delay any effort for the collection of their indebtedness. Ia the Infinite confusion of titles, the most that any Chanccllor could do was to aim at substan- til justice by protecting the rights of n e creditors, -aud rejecting such ¢aims as are of a2 doubtful patuve. Agreat loss must fall upon wl creditors,—it chould fall beaviest on those whose claims arce the least meritorious. Counsel lad virtually abardoned their objection to the Jewett trust- deed, and the Conrt must. of necessity. settle the conflicting claims of the numerous creditors upon tie assumption of the validity of that deed. Assuming the validity of that aesd, the Court proceeded to cousider the Peck bill, brought, among other things, to reform the Jewett trust- deed in certain provisions having reference to its foreclosure, and for a sale of the premises jncluded in seid Ceed, snd for the applica- ton of the proceeds (firet) to the payment «f the bon and coupons held by tise complainants. 1t had been represznted ty them br Childs, an oflicer fu the Chicazo & reat Western Railroad Company and the Chi- zazo & Great Western Railroad Lund Company, that the Riverside Improvement Company, of which he was President, havicg become greatiy involved, that Company and the Gas and Water Compantes had conv 11 their lands aud property to the C. & G. W. R. K. Land Com- {uny, and that 2 number of weelthy men in New York had organized aConstruction Compa- 1y to build 2 railroad to be called the C. & G. W. Railroad, w was to issue its bonds to the AMOUNT OF $8,000,000, 10 be secured by a trust-decd upon the railrond prope:ty, and a trust-deed upon the real estate of the €. & G. W. R. R. Land Company, to ee- cure a part of the bonds to. be used for the paviment of the indebtedness of the Improvement Company, and the remainder were to be used to pay the Construction Com- pany for building the road. Childs further told the parties that all the judgment and secured creditors of th:e Improvement Company, except one, kad consented to surrender their securitics and to accepe the bonds of the C. & G. W. Rail- rond Compuny, in licu thereof, sccured as sbove mentioned. Louis Saphied was the person re- fusivg. Hc bLad a trust deed for $75,000, past due, and had advertized the property for sale, &nd this clim was prior to all other claims, and ualass money could be raised to Esy Saphied arrangement with all the other creditors would have to be abandoned. The creditors, except Saplied, hiad all placed their releases and secur.ies in the hands of J. N. Jewett, in eserow, 10 be recorded by him when all ‘the ~reditors had released their licns. Complain- ants aver that, relying upon Childs’ statements, and owning property six miles west of River- side, which they expected to have furnished with increased railroad facilities by the building of the new road, they advanced $25,000 in cash and pave notes for $50,000, which_have been paid, the Land Company giving said complainants its notes for $75,000, guaranteed by the Railroad Company, and the bonds of the'latter Company secured by trust-deeds and forming a first lien upon the property. The bill further alleges that ke Prescott mortgage was then a lien upon aportion of the property covered by the trast- deed, ard that the complainants were compelled 10 pay the same a5 & protection to the bouds beld by them: that the said 100 bonds were offered for sale at public auction, and complain- auts purchased them; that the interest upon the bonds being past due and un&afid compiain- ants had a righi to declare_and did declare the prindips] due, and that $110,500 remains now due 1 complainants. It i3 ob ected that Peck et al., being pur- slissers of the bonds at their own sale, are not ihe owpers of the same, and bence have no title such as is set up in the bill. The rule of 18w is, that the complainants could not be pur- chasers at their own sale, but it s alsoa rule at the sale can only be voided by the trust; be kaving the option to void such sale, or to aflimm if it be beneficial for him. In this case, tbere hins been mo_attempt to void the sale by the party who hiad the legnl right so to do. But In such a purchase, the purchaser must be pre- Tared {0 show his title. Did the complainants Eeure o title to thege 100 bonds b virtue of the purchase at _the auction sale? Tue power of sttorney to W. R. Page, Trustee, uder which he made the sale to himself and bis cocomplainants, authorized a sale ‘““on the maturity of the said notes, or at any time terealter, or before such maturity in the event o such sevurities depreciating in value at pub- U or privace sale at bis diserotion.” The sale ould be made only upon the maturity of the Botes and the depreciation of the securities. me were not due at the time of sale. The st contingency contemplated by the powers of attorney HAD XOT OCCURRED Yhenthe gale was made. The sales were made XTen and a half months after the powers of at- ity were gtanted, and in the notice of sale Bomention was made of the depreciation of the Lur that they depreciated ot all between June, 1873, and Jan. 20, 1874, The railro; . 20, 1874, e ad bonds of the Chicago & Great Western Railroad mpany aud the “Farmers' Loan and Trust Company were & fraud from the very first, ex- cept as they were secured by the Jewett trust- deed. “The bonds were merely Issued to hyld up the declining Riverside property. There never was any real iutention to build the road. The notes mever had any value, and bence never could have depreciated. There mever was any evidence that the little value which the Jewett trust-deed gave to the rail- road bonds depreciated the value of the Peck notes between the dates mentioned. - The sec- ond contingency upon which the sale could have been made had not occurred. The Pecks had no title under such sale, the bonds are in their possession as collaterals, and they have the right to enforce payment through a court of rzguity. ‘The Pecks loaned their money, se- cured by 100 bonds, with the understanding that, in case of sale, they were to be first paid. ‘There was gencral consent o this sgrec- ment. If, by reason of prior llens and incumbrances, this provision cannot be fully enforced, it should be enforced as sgainst all arties to this suit who have not such lien. here will, therefore, be a foreclosure under the Jewett trust-deed st the suit of the Pecks, and there will be a reference to the Master to com- pute the amount due them on the original notes to which 1lha m:: 1(;% bonds are collateral ; and upon a sale to be made, subject to prior liens as hereafter defined, the imlebr.cdm;s on_these notes will be paid, if the proceeds of the 100 bonds shall be sufficient for such payment. The Pecks should be subrogated to the rights of the Prescotis to the extent of their payment, and Gage is in the same position. ‘The Badger bill was filed to foreclose a claim to the second 100 of the 200 preferred bonds in case of sale or foreclosure in the Jew- ett trust<deed. The decision of the Court was that the clums represented, being those of the Third National Bank, Badger and his relations will be referred to the Master to ascertain the amount uow due, making ne deductions from the cluims of usurious interest, and the parties holding such claims will ot be permitted any preference, but will have to come in on the sane. footing a8 the other creditors who may hold bonds under the Jewett trust-deed. THE GOOKINS CROSS-BILL was flled by Judge Samuel B. Gookims snd E. 8. Newton in the Peck suit, and the decision is: 4 The foreclosure of that dved of pronerty named therein for the payment of the fourteen bonds; the sale to ke mude upon the principles which govern courts of equity in the marshaling of securitles, and the cfaims of the Pecks upon so niuch of the property subject to the Grecnebaum trust-deed as is conveyed by the Jewett deed to be postponed to the claim of the complainant in the cross-bill to the extent represented by said fourteen bonds. The Hukill cross-bill was filed by E. M. Hukill, H. C. Davis, C. A. Cooper, «und N. 8. McFetridge against the Pecks to secure the pay- ment of twenty-tive §1,000 bonds. The decision is as follows: * They are entitled to be placed in the same condition that they were before the execution of the Page-Kimbark releases, and the property. covered by these trust-decds will be subjected to foreclosure in the inversc order of its alienation, if eny portion of it has been sold. A reference will be had to the Muster to ascer- tain the amount due, etc.” This bill, Page vs. Stevens, was brought by Page and Kimball against Stevens. The decis- jon was that, as the trust-deed had failed, the pmfi):rty should be discharged of the trust, and be lable to the claim of such creditors of River- side as_may have the next lien. The Judge added that he was at preseut disposed to dis- miss the bill, but would not do so uutil he should hear further from such parties ss might desire to be heard. The cross-bill of Hukill, filed acainst t'age and Kimbark, and asking for a personal decrce against them on account of an allezed violation of their duties as_trustees in the Page-Kimbark trust-decds, was dismissed for want of equity. The cross-bill of Joshua Sanders, who comes before the Court &sen innocent purchaser of 195 bonds of $1.000 each of the C. &G. W. R. R. Co., secured by the Jewert trust-decd, was tiled sgainst Peck and dismissed for want of equitv. .David A. Gage filed one of the original bills against the Riverside Improvement Compauy, and the decision of the Court is, that his bonds, which come within the first 1,000 issued, are se- cured by _the Jeweit trust-deed only, and he has mno right to resort fo the Greencbsum trust-deed. In regard to his indcbtedness against Riverside, if he has any beyond uis Lmruon of 1,000 bonds, his claims rest upon the same basis as those of the bona fide creditors, who havenot heen sllotted any of the first series of bonds. His case will also have to be referred to the Master for the pur- pose of ascertaining the extent of his claims. TEE CITY OF GHICAGO algo filed & cross-bill iu the Peck suit, setting up the fact that Gage, being indebted to the city in the sum of over ~ $500,000, and be- ing unable to wmeet the same, transferred to George Taylor, Trustee, 350 bonds of the railroad corapany, sccured by the Jewett trust-deed, and thet Gage in July, 1874, to securc his indebtedness to the city, obtained from the Chicago & Great Western Railroad Land Com- any the exccution of five deeds conveying ands at Riverside to Taylor. The bill prays that Gage may be compelled to protect the city and that the city may be subrogated to the rights of Gaze, if he should be Held to bave richts in Hen of the bonds transferred as sbove mentioned. The evidence dis- o] the said transfer of the bonds, and the prayer of the complainant will be granted, and the city will' be held to be the owner of Gage's interests to the extent ond according to the terms of the assignment from Gage to Tay- lor. The Court decided that W. T. Allen was en- titled to what he voluntarily accepted under the Jewett trust-deed, and mnothing more, aud that said deed was to be forecloged for his b+ :eiit. as well as the other creditors who had accepted se- curities under it. 5 The cross-bill of I. H. Hurbart, settingup 3 claim to thirty-five lots in Riverside, was dis- missed for want of equity. C. M. Smith filed a cross-bill claiming that, by the surrender of bonds under the trust-deed, he is entitled to a decree for the specitic lots, and a reference will be made to the Master to sscertain what bonds were secured and what property so demanded. The decision states that here is no valid objection to Secelye’s title as Trustee under his several deeds offered in evi- dence, nor to any of tho titles of Carrol Gates. ‘The Court holds the game opinfon with regard to the elzim of G. C. Smith to_ Lot 84, Block 10, Third Division; to that of W. Marks and F. 3' Osborne to the property introduced in evi- ence. C. A. Gregory set up a claim of protection for sixty-three of Jewett’s bonds purchased under a misunderstanding. The Court held that his bond should be protected by the foreclosure of Jewett’s trust-decd, but that he has no superior lien over the bondholders. The Court held that W. H. Parks’ lots, held by Parks as Trustee for Sutton, are not subject 0 the Jewett trust-deed, and the cross-bill was referred to the Master. Lo ascertain the total in- volved. . The Court held Vorhies’ title to the lots claimed by him ss good, except so_tar as affect- ed by the claims of Gookins et al. nnder the Grecnebaum and Page-Kunbark trust-deeds. The Woodward claime were laken out of the Jewett foreclosure, Henning's suits were dis- missed. and ttie Reynolds lots were held sub- ject to Gookins? claiins. IN CONCLUEION, the Court suys: There are a number of other small claims set. up by other defendants which I shall not _particu- 1arly refer to for tho reason that theyare inciuded within, sed controlled by, the principles which have been applicd to the decision of one or more of the cases already passed upon. By the applica- tion of those principles to the facts admitied or undisputed in reference to these claims, the de- crecs in cach case can be readily 2djusted. Tt is unncceasary, and would have been im- practicable. to state at any length the evidence ap- Plicehle to the ubove-decided_cases. ~Life s too Short to ellow any Chsncellor either to detail min- utely the evidence, or Lo sketch within the lmits of un opinion the decrees 10 be entered in_these saveral cases, Kven the views which are hereln expressed wiil probably bave to be subjected to some modifications when the decrees shall come to e settled. £ “Amid all this infinity of conflicting claims, those claimants who have in good faith made adyances of moneyand property which has gonc into the common fond, and who have subtracted notbiag from that fand for their own personal benefit, for which they Lave not pad an adequate considertion, should be protecied 88 to their _nonest claims except in 80 far as they bave volun- tanly eyfered their clums to be postponed to those of others, Where all are logers, they shoald losc most who do not show that they have made 2ny bona fida adyances to the common fund, or who, bavine made such, have received from that fund far more than they bave ever contributed to it. Above all, Ko one should be permitted to be the gainer throuyh any fraud practiced by him or by Sny other person actinz on his behalf. If the origingl stockholders of the Riverside Improvement Company and the Riverside Water and Gas Works Company ever advanced more than $30,000 in cash for its property, I do not think it is anywhere ehown in this record. And yet they divided among themeelves, or disposed of, $1,600,000 stock. Everything but the Orst land payments scems to have been done upon credit, tho creditors bein; ih most instances the holders of large amounts o etock for which some of them are not shown to have paid any conrideration. Amid all the extrav- azant expenditures of modgrn days, I-do mot be- §&ve a case can e found where 5o great an indedt- edness was incurred in fo short a time, and where there was go little to show for it. Debts were in- curred to the amount of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OP DOLLARS without any reasonable prospect of their pay- ment; engrmons interest wWas contracted to be pald when little or no _income was being mewed«u&: Toaid bave been rationally auticipated, Wit wi to meet it. In this most disnstrons present condi- tlon of Riverside afinirs they who Grinated and carried on so inous & kcheme of financiering ourht not. if they are now creditors of Riverside. toetand in the sime condition g those creditors swho, ollicers not being in_any of jts many corporations, or in . any - way fo miliar with th¢ mapazement of ity business, paid their money or eold property, an 100k 1t8 GLligations, payius the Tull Salus thatent From the first starting of [tiverside, Duncomb ap- pearsto have been a large stockholder and inii. mately connected with its fiscal affaira. He gras not only the friend of Childs, but his efcient coad- jutor in all Riverside matters. much the same condition as Duncomb, and for his discounts of Riverside per received, acconling to the uncontradicted evidence of Childs, enormous sums for usury. Neither of these men, in the absence of any fraud, ought to stand preciscly in the condition of creditors: who, in ignorance of the finuncial condition of Riverside, and dirconnected with the management of its busi: nees, have bought its sccuritics m the market at par, and_bavc_done nothinz to prejudice their claims. ~ Though Childs and Murray seem to have ignored their own personal claims against Hiver— side. they have not fuiled, in their general devotion to thelr own particular friends, to try, by word und deed, and by their evidence in' conrt to protect the intervsts which they have seemed to regard 85 ea- peclally committed to them. The “connection of Childs with the claims of Dadger and Ducomb, and his conduct in refer- ence to those claims, CANNOT BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED upon the hypothesia that he designed to act with entire fairness. 1f Riveraide had been exclusively his property, frce from incumbrance, he might have given away its property and scattéred its ob- ligations recklessly among his favorites, and bis conduct. though pussing strange, might utill bo charitably attributed to his romantic generosity. But Childs was not the owner of Kiverside, except in hix ownimagination. Lie was in reality onlva Trustee for° others, aud bad no risht to dispose of its mecuritios without receiving an adequate consideration. nor had be any right to arrange for a preference of the Badger claim, ex- cept in the interests of the cestuique trusts. Stevens, thongh he {commenced at a later day than some of tha others to munipulate Riverside allairs, having once embarked in that fascinating employment, made up 1 nssiduity what he ha Tost in time. " Elis Jottsrs to Childs, Introduced into this record, display an audacky sad sublimity of ingenions knowledge = which almost ~ comnels admiration. And the inventive genius which originated such fraudulent echemes is only equaled by the genius which could comprehend them and could arrange the efiicient organization for their execution. Stevens was Dancombe’a agent and confidant; Childs, Dun- comd's appreciative and protecting fricnd, S ders, as the assimnee of Duncomb, and tho heir- apparent of ie Riverside friendaliips, derives tho title to kis bonds and the claim to his lots in great part through the ingenuity of Stevens and the generosity of Childs. Such a claim has nothing upon the record in this case which commands for It the favorable consid- eration of 1 court of equity. Most of the other claima have been allowed, in part at least, though often a cluim has been subor- dinated to otier clatme. Further reflection, since the writing of the for- mer purt of this oplnion, has not led me to change my view of the Sanders title ond claim, 1t substantial justice has been arrived ot fn the sertlement of the equities of the various litigants, without the overthrow of legal principles, it is all that in this complicated litizution I bave ever con- celved of us possible. e THE MODERX IINISTER. How He Gets In tho Pulpit and His Pay ‘When He Gets Therc. New York Sun. The average annual salary of the American clerryman is 275 paper dollars. And yet he is not bappy! From the princely revenue of a Cardinal to the wretched pittance of a Presbyterian ¢ Help- er” the distance is great, although in point of time, occupation, constancy, and devotion the Badger was in highest and the lowest occupy & common level. In view of the fact that the churches of America cannot accommodate one-half of the population, and of the other fact that, as a rule, not more than two-thirds of the sccommoda- tions provided are required or availed of, it would not be the most difficult matter in the world to raise a question as to the actual value of the average clergyman to mankind. There is a good deal that might be said with truthon both sides, but instead of that I shall present, rather, & few facts of interest, from which others may draw texts for controversy. ‘The 40,000,000 of pecple in the United States support avnualty, 50,000 clergymen, at an ex- pense of §13,750,000. Fifty thousand rhen, who are recognized and respectfully saluted as “ religious teachers.” Who are they? Are they selected for their position by reason of obvious fitness? Do they elect the profession of their own volition? Are they safe and worthy of their trust? Are tliey happy in their business? Are they generally sincere, bearivg out in their pri- vate Iives the doctrines taught from the pulpit? In the first place, it is a fact that men sre rarely made ministers because as children or Jads they manifest any special calling or fituess for the profession. A tradeisa trade, all the world over. If & merchant, prosperous in life, has threc sons, one of whom cares nothing for books, while the others are scudious or average well at school, he is apt to take the one into his store or office and send the others to college. Whatever is the father’s line of affalrs, asa rule, fins in that son a devotee. The others go to colleze. Coming out, one is very likely taken into business, and the other chooses a” profes- sion. 1f a revival wave has flooded the college, 1t is possible that one of the voys may make a deliberate choice of the ministry, and prepare forit. Asa rule, however, such absolute choice is not frequent. The futher's occupation, and its cogmate branches, have much to do with the drift which nincty-nine times in & hundred floats our young men into trade or profession. If aman bea clergyman, with—as is geuerally the case—a large family, the sons become ministers and the datighters marry ministers. In ordinary busi- nesg lite 90 per cent fail, 3 per cent succeed, and 2 per cent rise to pronounced and notable pros- perity. So it isdn the pulpit. The vast major- ity of clergymen fail as preachers, fail as teach- cra, foil as convincers, and are saved from thorough uselessness solely by reasou of their quality as nurses, domesticians, and pastors. It’s a mistake to say that fluency of speech, the gift of gab, induces vouns men to become mipisters. The average preacher is not fluent of speech. Good spealers are the exceptions. Written sermons prosily delivered are the rule, and if the success of the great Christian Church depended on the eloquence and_rhetorical finish of the clergy, Heaven belp the Church. As from s West Point class may come ouoe Sherman, so from a theological class may come one Tyni!. one Storrs, oue_ Hall, one_Adams; but a3 all the West, Points in_the world could never have given Sherman his military genius, 80 would it be farcical to claim that any teacher of theology created the power which in the clergymen named gives them success and influ- ence, and puts thousands of mighty dollars in their well-lined wallets. There is a wide differcnce between a popular preacher and a good paetor. Popular preach- ers are impulsive, enthusiastic, and eloquent, but they are rarely good pastors. Good pastors are kind-hearted, sympathetic, and_attentive to the calls of the parish. They care for the poor. visit the sick, counsel with the afilicted, and Jiterally minister to the bouseholds of their flocks; but such men are never heard of, never Known, never reported. They live humbly, and die unnoticed—also poor. 1 find atter careful survey of the field, open to us ali, that the majority of living clergymen be- come such either because their fatliers were ministers, or by the merest accident. I need but referto the Tyngs, theStorrses, the Beechers, the Edwardses, the Porters, the Potters, the Coxes, the Carrolls, as proof of the former fact. It was perfectly natural for Lyman Beecher’s sons to follow their fatber's footsteps. He was poor, and they were forced to study and rup- port themseives. They all became clergymen, some suur:essiull{y, soine without a particie of success. And as it was with that family it is in very many otbers. In all Evangelical Churches oceur periodical revivals, when the young men and maidens are emotionally ‘‘convicted of gin,” and after an honest but defective examin- ination are made members of the Church. This Jeads to the social gathering and the semi-week- 1y proyer-meeting. ~ The brother in the chair calgs on the convert to pray, or to give his ex- perience. Some can do so with ease; otners would sink into embarrassment. Often a littie {alking fn this scmi-public way leads to more ublic talking, and that to a kind of missionary usiness, teaching in the Sunday-school. talking on the docks, or lecturin be- fore 8 soclety without = settled pas- tor. Self-onceit steps in very often. The good preacher thou; htlessly encourages the roung brother. The Deacons, glad of any re- ?iel from their cast-iron’ phraseology, welcome him to the front. A second revival comes and the young man becomes a “helper.” He blows the gospel trumpet and cxhorts the brethren to Hold the Fort with the best of ther. He may be clerk in dry goods or hard- ware, but trade is dull to him now. He needs the exaltation of the ‘sessions in the lecture- room. He attends the seminary course. He invests in bombazine coats, alpaca shoes, and & lute string for his watch. A year passes— two, three. All the time he is filling u with texts for bombardment, and acquiring the knack of_controversy. Does he practicel Ol yes; but not as before. He isn’t going 80 much on the docks or among the poor as he was. Where thea! Well, the Faculty receive 8 letter from Deacon So-and-8o at Podunk asking & supply, and promising all along from $5 an expenses to $15 and expenses for the Sunday gervices of the youthful evangelist. Buing se- lected, the young man goes. He Is warmly wel- comed. On Sunday he makes his maiden effort. Bpace is not permitted me in which to describe his triumph, and it will perhaps suffice if I sim- ply 1;3)0 his successful” anmhilation of all un- orthodox tenets, and his admirable diagnosis of the Divine plan reaching from eternity to eternity. A series of cxpeditions in nowise diminfsh the young man’s self-conceit, and when in the Tullness of time he receives bis diploma, he bold- 1y marches out upon the world and waits his call. A true man would go to work, but a well- drilled theolog waits for his call. Hereitisthat friends step in to secure a good salary, and per- baps spoil a good man. Maffit’s father never obtained for him an sudience. Elder Knap, never asked a dry-goods prince to say & gnofi word for him. Finney, the revivalist, cut his own swath. Jonathan Edwards was never boosted a step forward by influcnce. Dr. Spen- cer H. Cone great-grandfather of Kate Claxton, the Louise of the *“ Two Orphans,” did Lis own fighting. Lyman Beecher was indebted to no man for his platform. But there are hundreds of humdrum preach- ers to-day who have pulpits because they, have family influence. Would Morgan Dix have be- come Rector of Trinity Parish, with all which tlat neme implies, if his father had been John A. Dusenberry instead of John A. Dixi And, on the other hand, would not the zealous push of young Tyng have won him position, even if he had not been a son of th Rector of St. George's? Some of the Clarkes are light, others arc dull, but neither their wit nor the lack of it made them clergymen; it wasin the family. The sameis _true of the Potters, both of New York and Pcnus{]muiu. Part of the family have brains, they all have influcnce, and those who are mentally deficicnt are just as well fixed as those who are justly leaders in their de- ‘nomigation. Theodore Parker threw off the shackles of the church, hired the Music Hall, and preached. He attributed his wonderful success to the fact that hie had something to say, and said it. Jonathan Edwards thought out a system and taught it. Lyman Beecher accepted the faith of his fath- ers, and waged war on .1 who failed to see it in the same light. Dr. Taylor was more select in his followers, but combated with equal energy. All these men were very poor. ‘The present gencration of ministers believe in fat livings. As the bright-eyed Bartlett (former- 1y of Brooklyn, now of Chicago) snid, when ssked if he would o to San Francisdo: “I1 will, if the call is loud emough.” Sowe of the salarfes paia to-day are phenomenal in com- parison with the focusts and wild honey of the prophet who cried in the wilderness. Matthew, Mark, Luke, stared at $10.000 o year! How that sturdy man, Paul, would hive opened his eyes, if the men of Ephesus, or even the saints of ‘Thessalonia, liad suggested $20,000 as his year’s compensation! Yet, in our citics, young men of God regard these quids pro quo with a tender eye. The sums annually paid to Dix, Tyug, Morgan, Potter, Storrs, Thompsou, Taylor, Chapin, Duryea, and others are enormous, and, as a rule, are easily, very easily, earned. Cha- pin and Beecher, as lecturers, could earn much more than they are now paid, but the vast majority of city preachers oughit to fall on their knees and thank the Lord for influentiul rela- tives and friends in position. Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians are the worst pald in money. Episcopalians and Congregutionalists next. The Catholists take what they need: the rest goes to tbe Church. But the Church officer does not, on the average, find preaching profitable. The Western settle- mens arc still missionary ground, and 2 mis- sionary, even if he be a bigotand & fanatic, iy entitled to the respect the world always awards an earnest, honest man. ‘There are half-a-dozen newspaper writers in this city alone who can make a fair living by writing sermons for clerzymen to read. There are curled darlings in the pulpit as well as on the stage. Thereure hypocrites and scalawags in that trade as fn all others. There ure thousands of earnest preachers whose sole qualification is their earnestness. Example, and habit, and su- rersmion force many & man to church, and noth- ng but self-control and good breeding keep Lim there till the services close. The life of a country cergyman presents a charn for our starched student of theology. If you think I am in error, look at them. - Their type and cut are unmistakable. Perfumed locks, stiff cravat, suit of black, chain of hawr, with a tiny, pendant croes, and reneral order of proud meekness, stamp them one and all. How the early Apostles would laugh if they could take apeep at these young gentlemen out for an airing! Education helps the man, but the man must be born in the student before he can teach to any advantage. I haye heard theological stu- dents bombard the Church of Rome; scarifly Pontiue Pilate; fulminate against ‘ error’’; and annihilate the devil and his angels. I have seen them in most sentimental guise assault sin, and picture the sad condition of Adam and Eve after they were found ouc. I have known them with entire confidence to take hold of the Divine decrees, analyze them, disscct them, and give ‘heir whys and’ their wherefores. I ‘have licard, and seen, and know all this from the lips of a stripling who would be laughed out of court, and wouldn’t be tolerated in the sanctum of theé Podunk Gazette. But he got Lis diploma 8s a preacher; to-day he saves souls in a neigh- boring city at $5,000 a year, paid by the men, flattered by the women, stippered by the girls, and laughed at by the devil. On the whole am inclined to believe that $275 is a large sum to pay the average clerzyman? The Western pioneers who hoe, and rake, and diz. and saw wood, deserve more and get less. The tender enplings nearer home, o talk soft nothings, hook half their sermons, and understand the social elements, deserve less but get more. So scaut Is the income of the average clergy- man that he is forced to eke it out as best he may. Some edit - religious newspapers;” some simply write for them; some correspond with secular papers; some take pupils, and some beg. Now and'then 8 preacher hires a hall, wherein he talks on Sunday, and lives on the ¢ collections.” In Dr. Talmage’s tabernacle a collection is taken up morning and evening, and, 25 the congregation averazes 3,500 to 4,000 people, the result must be quite a comfort. In & majority of city churches ministers are paid regular salaries, varying from 8500 to $20,000. Dr. Dix, Dr. 'I;}'ug Dr.. Chapin, Dr. Storrs, Dr. Potter, and Mr. Beccher stand the hizhest in point of cash recefpts. Crack Congregational and Unitarian clergymen are the best paid. Then come the Episcopalians and Dutch Re- formed. Methodists and Baptists get less in actual cash, but they lead more social lives and dine around the parish more frequently. A few years ngo there were several “boy preachers,” who traveled about, drew great crowds, and attracted general attention, but they never came to anythlog. As men, they were of mo account, and souzht business chances before they reached maturity. Young men who enter the Episcopal chancel have but little to do at first. They *“look well in canoni- cals,” now and then read a sentence, become familiar with the routine, and in time are gradu- ated. Young men who enter the pulpit of any other denomination find the burden on their shoulders at once. They read the hymn, make the extemporaneous prayers, and preach the sermon. Under these circumstances it would be logical to infer growth _and stature, mental and moral, but somehd I don't find it. The average sermon is very tedious, and the average prea:ficr very boresome,—perhaps Lhat's the reason he gets but 275 paper dollars a year. ———— s A SMILE. ¢+ gmile is 8 trifie, "—aye, truly indeed, — But a miseion most blessed it hath: To digeipate eorrow, to brighten the home, And enliven the dreariest path. Nature sets the example, and smilesin her flowers, That peep from their sprinkling of dews In a rainbow that ehines, after heaviest showers, From a sky that is smilingly-blue. Tow reluctant Is man her disciple to be; The slightest of cares can annoy, And then be will wonder and dismally frown At othera that smile In their joy. Not a emile that is chronle,—not that do I mean That lingers forever and aye; For §s not the sunhine more welcome by far After darkness has reigned in the sky? But one that is cheerful. and honest, and kind, That is brightened by charity's glow, — That loosens the ice by indifference made, So the waters of kindness may flow. There's plenty of sorrow, and trouble, and care, We cannot remove from the earth: But still, if **a cap of cold water is blessed,” May not e'ena smile beof worin? | ) ———— Didn't Like That Elbowing. San Francisco Chronicle. “Awfol Gardiner” was once a well-known Buglust and sporting character jn New Yor n one occasion he went to Newark witha “select party™ to give a sparring exhibition. The negro who had charge of the ball where the sliow was to take place was oi gigantic stature, and one of the party wagered a bottle of wine that “ Awful Gardiber” could not knock the negro down with his fist. They all waited io the ball for the coming of the sable janitor with lights, He approached with a candle shaded m his hands, and, as he came within arm’s reach, the ‘ Awful " measured him, and struck square from the shoulder. The negro hardly winked. He simply turned his head round toward the pugilist and sald, **Gemmen,'please Le a little car'ful ob yer elbows,” 3 ——————— e THE COURT-HOUSE. Ald. Ballard’s Application for an Injunction Against the County Board. To Restrain the Ring from Par- ticipating in the Contract Stealings Argued Before Judge Farwell Yester- -daye--Great Array of Legal Talent, Jon Rountree and the Ring Deter- mined Never to Let Go, If Possible. The Court Takes the Question Under Advisement. The arguments in the matter of the applica- tion for the injunction to restrain the Board of County Commissfoners from erecting the Court~ House were resumed before Judge Farwell yes- terday morning. proceedings were technic- al, and consequeptly rather dry, and not over ten or fifteen people felt enough interest in the talk to sit it through. Upon the opening of the court, Mr. Rountree, on behalf of the Board, asked leave to file o supplementary answer to the amended bill. Mr. Woodbridge, for the complainant (Bal- Jard), said the answer would probably present new points for the consideration of the Court. He had not been able to make preparations to meet them, and he did not fecl quite to ready to proceed. Mr. Rountree replied that they had done what they had been directed to do by the Court. His Honor desired them four weeks ago to set up all the facts with reference to the financial condition of the county, since it was upon that question the Court wanted further argument. TInstead of setting it up by affidavit, they simply incorporated it iu & supplemental answer. There was nothing in the answer but what was before the Court the other time, except the fact of a tax-levy for the purpose of the Court-House, and stating the amount in the treasury. Coun- sel could not be taken by surprise very much! Mr. Woodbridge rejoined tuat he was taken by surprise, because he understood that the $100,000 of fire bgnds were not to be disposed of until'the further'hearing of the case. Mr. Rountpée—No such arrangement was made. Mr. Woodbridge—They have anticipated your Honor’s decision by selling them. Appropria- tions have been made for the work, and they re- quire some examination. The Court remarked that he could not_judge as to whether it was necessary to take further time until he saw what was in the papers. He would allow the answer and anything else to be read, and if he saw frum the facts it was neces- sary to give further time he would do it. Mr. Woodbridge bad no objection to the an- swer being read with that understanding, Mr. Rountree then read THE ANSWER. It set forth that the only moneys appropriated by the Board of County Commissioners 1or any purpose whatever, and which were not trans- Terable by the Board for other purposes, were the moneys appropriated to pay interest on the bonded indebtudness incurred both before and since the adoption of the new Constitution, and to provide for a sinking fund for the bonded in- debtedness incurred sinco the adoption of the new Constitution; that the entire amount ap- propriated _for such purpose did not exceed tne sum of §254,000; that the entire balance of moneys raised by taxation can be used by the Board in any way it sees fit; that the estimated cost of the Court-House will not exceed $1,500,000, and that it was not true, as al- Jeged 'in 'complninant’s bill, that the inter- est on the | cost would, when added to the other mecessary rpprovriations for connty purposes, raise the tax-levy for county purposes above 75 cents for every $100 of valuation of taxable property. The defendant denied that there was no law under which the Board could obtain any money for the erection of the Court- House without first submitting the question of taxation and the issue of bonds to the vote of the people. After den{ingn about everything else in the oill, the defendant admitted that the contract was entered into, and that the city and county had agreed upon a plan, but neither admitted nor denied (leaving the complainant to his proof thereof) that the proposed award of the contract to William McNeil & Son to construct the county’s portion of the building of Jimestoue was opposed to the wishes of the Common Council. The defendant had urged the city to prepare for and progress with the work, and directed the proper Committee to hold 1reqélent conferences with delegations from the Council with reference thereto, and had submitted various propositions to the city delegations, but all overtures upon the part of the defendant, and all nucmfils made to induce the dt'I: to proceed, had totally and entirely failed. That the city badatno time since the making of the contract been in a financial coudition to warrant its entering upon the performance of the contract upon its part; that it was not in a financial condiiion to do so now, and that they had no };rospcct. of it within a reasonable tim¢. That, in fact, it had been proposcd to the defendant to proceed and erect the entire building upon some arrangement on sgreement to be made with the city, and it might be gaid that negoti tions to that effect were still pending. The defendant, by reason of the refusal, after repeated demands, considered itself entircly re- leased from its promiscs_or obligations under the contract. and desired to proceed with the erection of the Court-flouse to mect the public interests. Thedefendant further said that the structure, when completed, would be in fact fwo buildings, and that the building one-half WILL NOT INTERFERE with the desigm, and not Increase the expense +in g very large sum of money,” since it would be perfecily fcasible to connect the two build- ings without interfcrini with the harmony and safety. The only indebtedness of the county, except the bonded indebtedness, was A temporary loan of $150,000, which, in case of. neccssi:f', it _ believes could be indefinitely extended at low rate of interest; The bonded indebtedness was of two sC5— old indebtedness existing at the time the new constitution went into effect, amounting to $2,742,000, bearing intercst at 7 per cent; and the new indebtedness incurred since the adop- tion of the new constitution, amounting to $1,450,000, drawing _interest at the same rate, and due In 1892. The valuation of real and per- sonal property in_ 1876, as equalized by the State Board, including_capital stock and rail- roads, was $215,000,000—subject ta™ taxation. The following sums and amounts were availa- ble. and appropriated by the Board for perform- ing the contract with McNeil & Son, and are part of the avails of the county for such pur- pose: $104,026.90 300, 000.00 108, 630.00 425, 000. 0 Total ..$1,328,556.09 Accompanying the answer was an affidavit of Architect Egan, which set forth that the delay oceasioned by the Commissioners examining the various guaiities of stone had prevented auy material amount of work being done upon the building during 1876, and therefore it could not be reasonably expected that the performance of the contract for the cut-stone work could be accomplished until the fall of the year 18775 that. during the progress of rald cot-stane work, it would be ne. .ssary to perform the wron work and lay the brick and masonry provided for in the specifications; that the estimated cost of the iron work was $160,000, and of the brick-laying and masonry $150,000, which with the price for the cut-stone work ($450,000) made the sum of $850,000, which, in his opinion, was the estimated cost of all the work necessary tobe done mpon the bullding during the next two years; that not more than %ho,mg would be required each year. AMENDMENTS. Mr. Woodbridge, tor complainant, then sub- mitted some amendments to the amended bill. The first was the twelfth article of the Constitu- tion, probibiting counties, citics, etc., to become indebted to an amount exceeding 5 per cent of the taxable property therein. The amount pro- posed to be expended was _$850, ‘There was Bo money in the County Treasury or under the control of said Board, which could be lawfully applied to the payment the con- et price and Jefated . work, and the Boarg Bad not provided for the callection of & direct apnusl tax sufficlent 1o pay the in3\| terest on said debt as it * fell due,” and also to discharege the © principal within twenty years of the time of contracting the same.” The Board, under existing legislation, bad no right to make such provision without submitting the question of the tax to the voteof the people of the county. The condition of the treasury on tne 12th of October, 1576, was as follows: The gen- eral fund was overdrawn in the sum of $4i 974.83. There stood to_the credit of the sink- ing fund for the indebtedness accruing since the adoption of the new constitution, the sum of $48,909.07, and to the credit of the intercst fund on new indebteduess, $41,578.29, and the credit of the interest on old indebtedness, 3110,- 953.50. The money standing to the credit of caid several funds had, in fact, been dimiuished Dby the overdraft and the Interest fund, or the greater part of it Was required to pay the interest on the indebtedness maturing on Nov. 1, 1876. On the same date (Oct. 12,776) there stood to the credit of the public building fund only $7.93. At the same date a negotiation w:s pending for the sale of $100,000°0f “fire bonds”; but whether or not the sale bad been completed and the same delivered, complainant could not state, but he insisted that the Ccnm:{vS Board had no authority to issue sald bon under any existing law, and that the bonds, if issued, were absolutely void. At the same date there were orders outstanding against the pub- Tic bnilding fund amounting to §19,715.99, and cowpiainant was informed and believed that, in addition, there were other large claims upon said fund which remained unsatistied. he Board, frandulently intending to cvade the grru\'lsion of the Cunstitution prohibiting them om anurrinF indebtedness without submit- ting the question to the vote of the people, and to proceed with the building of the Court- House in violation of law, and to impose upon the Court with a show of cash_resources, when, in fact, the county was destitute of such re- sources, had attempted to make various appro- priatious for the work, said -pgropriminns nom- inally ageregating 31,325,505.92, but an analysis thereof showed that they were all either illégal or fictitious. *The first item (delinquent taxes) had been previously appropriated, aud the Board had no right to devote the proceeds thereof or any part to the purpose of building a Court~ House. The amouut &549{,926.90) was not the real amount that would be realized from said back taxes. It included certsin county taxes (%8,0&&55) ‘which had not been collected because the TAX WAS NOT LEGAL 2150 $22,311, which had not becn collected because judgment was refused; also personal property _taxes amounting to $284,111.52 which had never been collected by reason of the insolvency or removal of the persons linble. None of the items specified were of any value, and nothing of consequence would ever be realized there- from. The remaining sum of $181,592.50 had not been collected, cause the judgment for taxes was appcnlcd to the Supreme Court, and the amount to be collected therefrom would not, as complainant belicved, exceed $100,000 in case judgment wus allowed, and, in point of fact, nothing may be collected therefrom. Com- plainant bad not been able to eompletely analyze the sppropriation bills for the years 1871 72, %3, and 74, but he had ascertained that m{ amount that might be col- | lected Lad been fully anticipated by apprupria- tiou bills. Among other specific apprupriations chargeable upon sald fund, if collected, were items belonging to the sinking fand to retire the principal of the new indebtedness, amount- ing to $190,342.70. There was nominally in the Treasury $48,999.07 to the credit of the sinking fund, but, in fact, it had been reduced to_about $1,600 by an overdraft of $47,574.83. Of the fire bonds, argregating $1,500,000, one item of $50,000 was never, in fact, sold, and the Board claimed that $50,000 of said sivkiog-fund could be properly withdrawn therefrom in place of sslg unsold firc bonds; hut, aside from the said sum of $50,000, the total amount be- longing to said sinking-fund should now be in the treasury,—at least $140,000; aud'com- plainant insisted that all sums of money that could be realized for said back taxes should be spplied In restoring said sioking-fund, 20d ti:a the entire collections from that source would insufficfent to make good that sinking-fund. By reason of the failure of the Board to collect ail the taxcs for the seid several years, the annual appropriations were not fally met, and during 1574 and 1875 the Treasury closed with a deficit, which now amounted to at least $150,000, in ad- dition to the aforesaid overdraft. And com- plainant insisted if any sum be realized from the back taxes more than suflicient to replace the smking-fund, it should be =applied to the payment of sald deficit. The appropriation of the Reform School property did uot give the Board any right to proceed with the Court- House upen the h}ipothesis that the price of the land was in the Tressury. The Board, by the constitutional provision aforesaid, were con- fined to a single method of raising funds to pro- vide for the cost of said building, to-wit, by an annnal tax; and complainant insisted that the value of the Reform School lot COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED by the Court in determining the cash resources of the Board or county. - The attempt to scll the premises at the %rescnt time was a fraud upon the tax-payers. The remaining item upon hich the Board relied was the appropriation of $425,000. It was fictitious and fraudulent. In making the estimates the Board had allowed only $5,000 as a contingent fund, and_made no allowance for errors or abatements. The latter allowance was absolutely indispensable, and the sum of $100,000 should have been allowed. In 1572, $100,000 was allowed for this purpose, and $75,000 for contingent expenses; in 1673, $60,- 000 for contingencies and $153,060 for abate- ments;’ in 1874, $30,000 for contingent expenses and $224,260 for errors and abatements; in 1875, $75,000 for contingencies and $215,775 for errors and abatements. Notwithstanding the large percentafes to cover errors, abatement, and con- tingent fund, the said levies of the said several years failed to reslize the amount of the remaining appropriations, and _ during the lasi two years the _‘Treasary closed with a deficit, both it matter of the sink- ing fund and of the floating debt. The tax-sale for the year last named was now in progress and was nearly completed, and ail the collec- tions realized from said tax-sale and from a further sum of $168,181.40 for taxes of preyious years which had been forfeited to the State amounted to the sum of $1,124,504.83, showing a deficit of about $600,000. The omission of sald items from the estimates of the current year was fraudulent, and said estimates were made to convey to the Court 2 false im- pression, and to enable said County Board to involve the county in_ debt with- suthority of law. It permitted to proceed with the Court-House upon the basis of said tax-levy, the collections of the current ear would fall far short of the estimate, as to eave & probable deficit of about the sum ap- ropristed for the Court-House. The State oard of Equalization had not yet “fully com- pleted its work of equalizing and _assessing taxes in the county, and their work bad not been reported to the County Clerk, and com- plainant therefore insisted ,that until the Audiv- or made his report no tax could BE LAWFULLY LEVIED upon the property in Cook County. ‘Mr. Woodbridge offercd in evidence extracts from the books, covering the figures embodied in the amendment to the bill, but they not be- ing sworn to Mr. Rountree objected. He said the $37,000 was back in the fand, haviog been drawn out only for a day or two. Astothe other figures they were worth nothing. Judge Lawrence, in order to let the argument o on, was willing to accept the statements, as r. Bye’s opinion; for what they were worth, and the making of an afidavit was walved. Mr. Rountree stated that the county owed $200,000, half of which was due Oct. 11, and Bye uscd the $47,000 to make np a balance necessary to pay that sum, a new loan of $50,000 being made. This left the amount of the temporary loan $150,000. ~ C. C. P. Holden, Chairman of the Finance Committee, was sworn, and confirmed that statement. Ot the indebtedness, $100,000 was due Nov. 11 next, and $50,000 next year. Upon cross-examination, in answer to the q:cslion, “Do you know how much money there is to the credit of the senem.l fund in the county treasury?” be said, © Very little,—only fize, taxes that have been collected since Oct. ; All the lawvers were ready to go on with the arvu,,iment, but neither side seemed willing to begin. SIr. Rountree wanted to know the law upon which complainant relied before proceeding further. Mr. Herrick could not state the authorities he would rely upon, but desired an opportunity wnka.nswar whatever pointe defendant might make. E The Court supposed the question was, wheth- er, upon the statements made, the Commission- ers should be zllowed to go forward and make the contract—if there was any legal objection to the financial exhibit. THE ARGUMENTS. Mr. Herrick, for complainant, opened the ar- f’umem' He sald it was proposed, as sppeared rom the amended answer,to incur an ulti- mate liability of $550,000, and the question was, whether the Board, under the facts discloged, could incur an obligation of that ex- tent. He contended that it could not—that it ‘would be a violation of the Constitution to do so. The Board was about to enter into an obli- gation, which would create an indebtedness within the mcaning of the Constitution. Had they provided sufficlent and appropriate means for the payment of the debt? The provisiom of the Constitution on this point was explicit. They must provide for its payment bya direct annual tax. They had not done so. A fundap- .propriated for current expenses was eacred. It could not be diverted b Nresolution passed after the money ha Decn _appropriated for specific purposes. He dd not believe the Board had the rizht to sell the Reform-School propersy—that they in- tended to dispose of it. To ‘sacrifice it mow would be an abuse of authority to accomplish their end. He then atiacked “the tax-levy of 1876, saying, under the law, the purposes to be provided for must be the o current ex- penses, und the obligation must be assumed in snch & way that there would be no other obliga- tiowon the part af the municlpaiiiy cxcept tc collect the tax with due diligence. By appro- priating the $425,000, if the amount was not collected; there was still an obligation to pay for the work contracted for. Ju ge Lawrenve inquired if he contended that the Board should have levied $350,000, althouzh one-half of it was to be expended year after next. Mr. Herrick replied that the Board, if it chose, might provide for the payment of the en- tire sum out of the levy for this year. ME. JEWETT, in reply, said under the Constitution and the 18w, as he understood them, the whole subject matter of the litigation (the circumstances di- vested of the element of fraud) was within the discretion and judvment of the County Board absolutely end conclusively, and e did Tot sec how 1t was possible for the Court to get juris- diction for the purpose of revising their ju ment upon any question they must necessari adjudicate upon prior to passiug au order for the erection of the Court-Housc. The constitu- tional delegation of power to them, and the puwer which passed by the provision was jost as complete and just 2s broad as the power ‘which under a similar provision passed to the Legislature of the State. As to the Board's power to raise money forcounty purpuses, there were only two limitations,—first, that no county should become indebted to anamount excecding 5 per centum of its taxable property; and see- ond, that it should not levy a tax to excead i3 cents on the §100. The record showed that the limit_of 5 per cent had not been reached by several millions; hence thatwas outside the case, andtheother wasnot urged. The Courtcould not assume, for the purposes of theinjunction, that the Board would not take care of the Hability as it occurred. The Board had exercised its judg: ment, and had decided that the tinances were sufficient to justify themin letting the contract, and in executing it, and, to his mind, their acts could not be interfered with. Mr. Rountree followed, arguing that if the law was as the Courts had uniformly declared it to be (be could find no cases to the contrary), the taxes being levied and npprogrmed fora gurpo!e, were, in contemplation of law, in the reasury. There were half a millior of back taxes, and $425,000 of the present levy, makin $925,000, and $103,000 as the _ procee of ' bonds,—in all_ $1,035,000,—to the obligation. It could mot expected that over $400,000 or $450,000 at the outside would be needed next vear. The Board had levied $425,000. Certainly $300,000 tc $350,000 would be collected; and that, with the casn on hand, would meet the Indebtedness. He had no doubt the Supreme Court would decide the appealed tax caces in the county’s favor. The levy bad been madeand the books prepared, and the taxes are being extended; and the question was should they be collected and Huck given the benefit of them by drawing the inter est upon _the balances, or should the Board go on with the Court-House. JUDGE LAWRENCE continued the argument, devoting special atten- tion to the cunstitutional provisions, urging that the contract with McNeil & Son\ did not create a debt in the s of the Constitution, when construed in ref: ence to the pe language of the Constitu tion, and did not create a debt atall in the strictly legal sense of that term. The applica- tion was premature: the gentleman should have waited until there bad been some violation of the Constitution or statute. He asserted that no case could be found of an application to a court of chancery, asking it to interfere by its writ of inf'unctinn with the performance of their dnties, within their pr?cr sphere, on the part of the aathoritfes of a city or county, because it right happen, in certain contingencies, at some remote period, as & consequence of what was about to be dobe, that the county or city would transgress the law. The Board' had made ample provision to meet all indebtedness as fast as it acerued, and, in his opinion, that ended”the case. The matter of fraud had been exploded by his Honor, and the simple question was. would tne Court interfere with tne Board for the purpose of substitnting its (the Court’s) judgment In rezard to the amount of monev that should be collected froin the levy of next year, in gl:u:e of the jfllfmm. of that body, to which the law had con- fided it, the $435,000 wos not suf- fiu!en&o the Board would levy the other $250,000, and still be within the limit of 75 cents on the $100 of valuation; but he hoped the Court would not imposc it additional burden on the people. MR. WOODBRIDGE closed the argument for the compl: admitted that, if the Board bad max tax-levy suflicient in amount to provide’ contract, they would be permitted to prodeed; and, further, if they had made o valid_tac-Rgy which, added to other funds in the Treasun) ‘would constitute a sufficient fund, they would be permitted to proceed; butthe puint he made was that. before the Board could euter inton contract involving the county in debt, there must be either in the Treasury or a valid taxlevy sufliient in _amount to pay the entire sum contracted for. He then discussed the question asto whether the fn- debtedness was such an indebteduess as was contemplated by the Constitution, claiming that it was withinthc prohibition of the Constitutfon. on in the law euthorizing the Board to pruvide [or uy tax except for the current year. The only thing it could do with reference to the revenue of its own notion was to revise the assessment and then make what was called an appropriation bill, setting forth how much should be lesied for taxer, and the particular objects of taxation. That was the end of its duty, and the end of its power. An annual tax must be provided in some way before the, indebtedness could be In- curred, provided the: ness was not made by o tax of = pacticul that it was very plain ferred by any legislati n\the Board to levy any such snnual ainly had not levied it, and conscqudptly were\pot per- mitted to incur the indebtedness. ABto issu- ing bonds, he contended that “the latest expres- gion of the Legislature was that the people should pass upon it, and it seemed to him the Court would so hold. He then considered the condition of the Coun- ty Treasury, asserting that it was mnob such as to warrant the construction of the Court-House without issuing bonds or levyinz 8 tax—that there was mothing fn it which could be put to this purpose, since the sinking fund - would have to be fill- ed and the floating indebtedness paid first. It had been demonstrated to his Honor that next year, if the appropriation proceeded, the Trefiury w:uld close wniha &ifik just n!:lonlt equal to the appropriation ), and it ha'in evidence. that the Commissioners knew it. They could not'proceed; because there was not suflicient funds to_justify it, because they had nnflt{{arav‘lded forndirect annual tax, because they had not made the appropriation in such & lawful shape as the law wowld recognize. The Court said he would pie the matter his immediate attention, and nobi{y the attorneys when he was prepared to deliverhjs deciaion. e ———— AUTUMN-DAYS, Delightful days. when all the hazy nir Te Bhled with perfame from the blood-red vines, Climbing along the rosdside’s winding way, Hiding the fences’ rough and ragged linea. The hills afar take on :drelmJ look: The valleys intervening, aad the plains Are spread by lavish Xature—a fair, open book: ‘Weread the varled pagea, oft with bitter pain. Perchauce some other Autumn. when we gazed On mountain. meadow. and the clinginz vine, By Love's delusions all onr vight was dazed. ‘And we had deeply drank of Passion’s wine. If 50, & deeper beauty shaded feld and grove: The pines took on 3 deeper added hue; The hazy skies were fairer; happy did we rove Where Nature's paintings widened to our view. The softened murmaur of the babbling brook Seemed to us music of the rarest tone; All sounds of Nature added music took: Alas! this Autumn we are wizer grown; For we have wakened from delusive dreams, And Love has—wounded—perished in_onr sight. And woodland, mountain, and the murmariny __streams, Not by Love's lustze seen, but Grief'sdark night. All sounds are painfal to onr saddened ear; The tasseled pines a sombre masic give: The blood-stained leaf, in falling, seema o reer Predicting swift decay for all who hope or live. And Natore's gulnfinvs. touched with pencil rars, To gloomy vision all too sombre seem: And dayn to othera eeeming the mont fair Are but a8 mockery to our perished dream. Remembering only how we once could see The vivid landscape brightening all the time, How faded all its beantles seem to be, From amber foltage unto blood-red vine. Time's healing lotion will be well applied, Onr pain will vanish s the years roll ronnd; But sadly el we view the Antumn-tide When ethe's watera we have—searching—found. Ocr. 12, 1876. Aupzzy VExNox. e e—— - A few months ago oue of the mstersof a country mar-school died. The schoul build- ing waa clased on the day of the funeral. John- ny Smith passed the time in P“.“"E,:J a pond near his house. A few days since mother sent him to school 2s usual, but Johnny pre- ferred playing by the pond, where he met Lis father, who in&ulred why he was not at schook. Johony sald there was no school, and, whem pressed for a reason, re'yued triumphantly, **That man is dead againl’ \ R