Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

that a constitutional convention was near at in criminal cases, except that this court is hand, where the alleged defect in the broad clothed with appellate jurisdiction in criminal and general language could be remedied and as well as in civil causes, and is invested with restricted. This suggestion bore fruit, and, a general superintendence and control over in the constitution succeeding this decision, all inferior courts, under such rules and regubail after conviction was denied in cases lations as are prescribed by law (Const. Wyo. where the punishment was death or by im- art. 5, $ 2); but the statute relating to appeals, prisonment at hard labor. Yet the same and which has stood practically untouched for court, in a later case (State v. Roger, 7 La. a quarter of a century, provides for the allowAnn. 382), while the decision in Longworth's ance of writs of error in criminal causes, "for Case was yet the law in Louisiana, upon good cause shown," upon the application of habeas corpus proceedings in the case of one the defendant, verified by him and by his ataccused of murder for bail before trial, on torney, if he have one, dispensing with the the ground that he could not obtain a trial necessity of inspecting the record, until very at the ensuing term of the district court, the recently required. Sess. Laws 1895, c. 27. bail was refused, and a speedy trial of his It has been the practice lately in this cause was directed. Speaking of the former court to allow writs of error pro forma, but case, the court says: “Although bound to this is a matter of grace. Either the court grant a writ of habeas corpus to bail, even or judge to whom the application for the after conviction, as decided by this court in writ of error is made may refuse the writ Longworth's Case, yet we exercise the power, if it does not appear that sufficient reasons as intimated in that case, with reluctance, exist for its allowance. Donovan v. Ter. because, in doing so, we are obliged to hold ritory, 3 Wyo. 90, 2 Pac. 532. Other restrica law of the general assembly to be uncon- tions are imposed in the statute regulating stitutional, because this court was divided in appeals in criminal cases, among which is opinion, and because the district court holds the limitation of the time within which the a contrary opinion, and because we are all application for the writ of error must be sensible of the evils to which the exercise made, such period being one year after the of the power may lead. It is our duty, there rendition of the judgment. It was with all fore, to avoid the exercise of the power, if it these provisions in view, relating to bail and can be done consistently with the rights of the institution of proceedings in error, with the applicants. We thought it could be done the various limitations imposed by law as in this case by affording him an immediate to time and method of procedure, that the trial, which we directed.” In Ex parte Ezell, constitutional provision was embodied in 40 Tex. 451, the doctrine of the Louisiana our organic law relating to bail. It was court was repudiated, that of the North Caro

never the practice to let to bail in this jurislina case in State v. Ward adopted, and, in diction after conviction, and this was well addition to the grounds given in the case known to the framers of the constitution, a approved, the Texas court held that there large number of whom were learned in the were constitutional restrictions in that state law, and from long residence were familiar upon the right to appeal in criminal cases, with the laws and practice of the territory. which was not a 10atter of right, but only al- They evidently had no desire to work any lowed by the supreme court or some judge radical changes in existing laws, except thereof upon an inspection of the record, where the changes were clearly expressed; where it was believed that some error had and there is no indication anywhere in the been committed. The further reason found constitution of an intention to enlarge the in this case was that the exception made as power of admission to bail, particularly to to bail in capital cases, “when the proof is persons convicted of crime. The construcevident and the presumption great," was of tion adopted in Texas, California, Ohio, and value in explaining and determining the force North Carolina, and feebly opposed in Louof the general language of the sentence, and isiana, seems to be the one to govern us the exception having reference to the proof here. The guaranty of our constitution is upon which a prisoner is bailable is alluded the familiar one of a speedy trial before an to as indicating the class of "prisoners"—in impartial jury, and the right to admission our constitution “persons"-to which the to bail pending the trial, save only in capclause is applicable, whether the prisoners be ital cases, where the proof is evident or the charged with capital or less felonies. The presumption great, and these words of lim. opinion further declares that the right to bail, itation to the grant of right to the citizen which, in common with other great constitu- explain the meaning of the entire guaranty. tional rights, was secured after a long strug. | In capital offenses, after conviction, the gle against tyranny and oppression, was the presumption is always great and the proof right to bail before conviction, the grievance evident of the guilt of the defendant, and complained of being the treatment of pris- therefore bail is not granted to one cononers before trial and conviction. This case victed of a capital crime. This seems a was affirmed in Ex parte Schwartz, 2 Tex. guide to lead to the determination of the App. 80. It is directly in point here, particu- tiine when the constitutional guaranty of larly as we hare no direct constitutional pro- the right to give bail ceases. All persons vision allowing appeals as a matter of right thus granted the right must necessarily be

of the same general class; namely, those servitude. Upon his mere request, under accused of crime, and before conviction. the humane provisions of the law, he is The constitutional provision, being thus con- spared all the humiliations incident to his strued, affords bail to all persons accused punishment, if he so desires, until the court of crime less than capital before convic- of last resort decides that he was justly tion; and it therefore grants no such right condemned; and, under the rules of the apafter conviction, for at that time and there- | pellate court, his case takes precedence of after, so far as the constitution is concern- nearly all civil causes. Owing to the expe. ed, the right to bail is left as it existed at dition with which the work intrusted to this common law,-a matter of discretion to be tribunal has been conducted, his cause may exercised by the proper courts and their be speedily heard and promptly determined, judges. But the legislature has taken with due regard to the gravity of a cause away this discretion, at least after sen- where the liberty of the citizen is involved. tence, and directed, by the express provi- The statute expressly forbids the admission sions of the statute quoted, that a person to bail of a person convicted of a felony, convicted of a felony, where the execution after sentence, by directing that he shall be of the sentence is suspended at his request, imprisoned until his cause in error is disshall be imprisoned until his proceedings in posed of, and the constitution extends the error are disposed of. The legislature un- right to bail to persons before judgment doubtedly has the power to provide for bail has been passed in crimes of this magnitude, after conviction and upon the suspension of

under the construction that we are comthe sentence. Ex parte Voll, 41 Cal. 29; Ex pelled to give to the provisions of that inparte Dyson, 25 Miss. 356. It has not done strument conferring the right of admission so, however, but has expressed itself to the to bail. While we recognize the right of contrary, in a statute whose terms are sus- the legislature to enlarge this constitutionceptible of but one construction. These al grant so as to include persons sentenced views are amply sustained by the supreme

for a felony, this court has no power and court of Ohio in Hampton v. State, 42 Ohio no inclination to invade the domain of the St. 401. That state has a constitutional

legislature, and confer such a right in the provision respecting bail like our own, and face of the unambiguous direction of a valid also a similar statute. The Ohio statute

statute. It is doubtful if the position of provides that “where a person is sentenced

the defendant in this proceeding secures for a felony, and execution of the sentence him any footing in this court, as his prois suspended, the court shall order him in- ceedings in error have not been initiated, to the custody of the sheriff, to be impris- and nowhere does it seem that bail is aloned until the case is disposed of." Rev. lowed under either constitutional or statuSt. $ 7323. The court held in the case last tory authority where an appeal is not pendcited that after conviction and until sen- ing; but we have decided the application tence, pending a motion for a new trial, by upon the main point involved, as it was fulreason of the peculiar language of their ly argued, and the matter was submitted to statute, the court had a discretion to admit

us upon that proposition. The petitioner is to bail, or, as they put it, the power to take remanded to the custody of the sheriff of bail, but that after sentence the power or

Laramie county, and his petition is disdiscretion was taken away by statute.

missed. Cases may occur where imprisonment during the pendency of proceedings in error CONAWAY and POTTER, JJ., concur. or appeals in criminal cases may be disastrous to the health of the convicted person, but the law does not provide for such con

(5 Wyo. 217) tingencies. In this case no such reason for

MILLER v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 IN CARadmission to bail arises, as no showing is

BON COUNTY. made of the sickness of the petitioner, and

(Supreme Court of Wyoming. March 14, 1895.) it is unnecessary to consider the application to let to bail from that standpoint.

Bonds Of SchooL DISTRICT – ELECTION-LIMITA

TION OF INDEBTEDNESS-VALIDITY. However, the statute makes no such ex

1. A vote of the majority of those present at ception, but is positive in its requirement

an adjournment of an annual school meeting, in that a defendant convicted and sentenced favor of refunding the bonded indebtedness of for a felony, where the execution of his sen

the school district, is valid, although the voters

in favor of the bonds were not a majority of tence is suspended upon his application,

the voters of the entire district or of those who shall be imprisoned until his case in error were present at the regular annual meeting, unis disposed of. The statute, which we are der Sess. Laws 1893, c. 10, § 1, authorizing the asked to denounce as repugnant to the con

directors of school districts to issue such bonds,

provided the qualified electors of the district stitution, does not compel the defendant to

shall so determine at any regular or special meetenter a prison. The "four walls" of his

ing. place of confinement are erected by law for 2. The refunding of the bonded indebtedhis detention until his appeal can be deter

ness of a school district is not the creation of

the debt, under Const. art. 10, $ 4, providing that mined, and therein he is not subjected to

no debt in excess of the taxes of the current year prison fare, prison rules, or the garb of shall be created by any municipality, unless the proposition shall have been submitted to and ed in favor of the refunding proposition; and approved by a vote of the people thereof.

thereupon a resolution was passed authoriz3. A delay of 17 months between a vote in favor of the issuance of school-district bonds to

ing the board of directors of the district to refund the bonded indebtedness of the district,

issue and sell the refunding bonds of the disdue to the financial stringency, will not invali- trict in the sum of $23,000, then outstanddate the bonds on the ground of remoteness of

ing, in accordance with the act, the bonds the time of their issuance from the time of the vote authorizing them.

issued to be known as the “15-30 bonds," 4. Constitutional and statutory restrictions and to be sold at the lowest possible rate of upon the amount of bonded indebtedness that a interest. A ballot was taken on this resoluschool district or other municipality may incur

tion, and it was adopted by a unanimous are inapplicable to bonded debts created before the passage of any restrictions as to such indebt- vote of the 31 electors present. After these ednes3.

proceedings, the district board corresponded Reserved case from district court, Carbon

with various parties dealing in bonds, rela

tive to placing the refunding bonds, and they county; Jesse Knight, Judge. Action by Isaac C. Miller against school were advised that, owing to the financial

stringency then prevailing, it would be imdistrict No. 3 of Carbon county to enjoin the

possible to sell or dispose of the bonds; and issuance of school bonds to refund the bonded debt of the district. Case reserved. In

for this reason the district board took no

further steps towards selling the bonds, until junction denied.

October, 1894, when a notice offering for sale Craig & Chatterton, for plaintiff. McMick- the refunding bonds was published pursuant en & Blydenburgh, for defendant.

to the statute. The bids tendered under this

offer were opened on the 30th day of NovemGROESBECK, C. J. The following mate- ber, 1891, and the bid of Mason, Lewis & rial facts are set forth in the agreed state- Co., of Chicago, being the lowest and best ment filed in the district court in this cause: bid, was accepted, the amount of the indebtIsaac C. Miller, the plaintiff, is a resident edness, $22,000, to be issued in bonds to be taxpayer and qualified elector of school dis- dated January 1, 1895, to bear interest at the trict No. 3 in Carbon county, a legally or- rate of 6 per centum per annum, the price ganized school district. In 1886 the legisla-offered being $22,669, or $669 in excess of the tive assembly of the then territory of Wyo- face of the bonds, and the bonds were to ming passed an act authorizing the defend- run, as advertised, for 30 years, to be reant school district to issue bonds to the deemable at the pleasure of the district after amount of $23,000, for the purpose of build- 15 years from their date. The amount of ing a schoolhouse in the district, and, in ac- the bonds of said school district at the time cordance with said act, the bonds of the dis- of the admission of the state into the Union, trict were thereafter issued in such sum, July 10, 1890, was less than 4 per centum of bearing interest at the rate of 8 per centum

the assessed valuation of the taxable propper annum, which are a valid debt against erty of the school district. At the annual the district. The interest accrued thereon charter election held in the city of Rawlins, and $3,000 of the principal has been paid, which lies wholly within the limits of the leaving unpaid on the bonds the sum of $22,- school district, held on the second Tuesday 000. Under the authority of an act of the of April preceding the annual school-district second state legislature, permitting the meeting, more than 500 votes were cast. school districts of the state to refund their The agreed statement of facts closes with bonded indebtedness, notice was given ac- the statement that the board of trustees or cording to law of the regular annual school- directors of the school district is threatening district meeting to be held on Monday, May to carry out its agreement by issuing the 1, 1893, in which, among other things, it was bonds of the district to the bidders whose stated that the annual school meeting would bids were accepted, and will do so unless redetermine by ballot whether the bonded in- strained from so doing, and an injunction is debtedness of the district should be refunded prayed for against the board of directors of in accordance with said act (chapter 10, Sess. the school district. Laws 1893), and in this respect the clerk of The plaintiff claims, under the agreed the school district followed the direction of facts, that the board of directors or trustees a special meeting of the board of trustees of the district has no authority to issue the held April 18, 1893. At the annual school- refunding bonds as contemplated (1) because district meeting held pursuant to such no- the qualified electors have not authorized the tice, and under the provisions of the statute, same as required by law, and the vote of 34 on the first Monday of May, 1893, being the in favor of the issuing of the bonds at the 1st day of that month, the matter of refund- adjourned annual meeting, it is alleged, was ing the bonds of the school district was by not a majority of the qualified electors of resolution referred to a committee to report the district, nor even a majority of the meetupon at a subsequent time, to which the an- ting, as it was an adjourned session of the nual meeting was adjourned. At the annual same meeting at which 82 votes were cast; meeting, 82 votes were cast at the election (2) because the debt which is thus to be creof trustee, and at the adjourned annual meet. ated is not in conformity with section 4 of ing, held May 10, 1893, the committee report- article 16 of the constitution of the state, as the proposition to create such debt had not the former case a majority is necessary to been submitted to a vote of the "people" of constitute a quorum, and no act can be done said school district; (3) because the vote tak- unless a majority be present, and in the laten May 10, 1893, if legal at that time, was ter a majority of any number of those apnot for the issue of $22,000, but for $23,000, pearing may act Ang. & A. Corp. (11th Ed.) of refunding bonds, and the latter proposi- $ 501. The voters absenting themselves from tion has never been submitted to the electors the election are presumed to assent to the of the district; and (4) the time of the vote expressed will of the majority voting at an is too remote from the time of the issuance election held in pursuance of law and upon of the proposed bonds. The defendant proper notice, and so with those who do atclaims that the proposed issue of the refund- tend and who do not vote upon the proposiing bonds is legal in all respects, and all the tion, unless the statute requires a different necessary preliminaries have been fully com- rule, and prescribes that the majority shall plied with according to law.

be of the electors present, or of those voting Upon the agreed statement of facts, sub- at the election. State v. Swift, 69 Ind. 531, stantially as recited, the district court for 542; State v. Binder, 38 Mo. 450; People Carbon county found that an important and V. Clute, 50 N. Y. 451; Smith v. Proctor, 130 difficult question arose in the case, and a N. Y. 319, 29 N. E. 312. The last case cited number of questions were by that court sub- gives the rule of the common law, as demitted to us for decision. They will now clared by Lords Mansfield and Denman, to be considered in detail.

be that “whenever electors are present, and 1. “Was the vote had at the adjourned do not vote at all, they virtually acquiesce meeting on May 10, 1893, sufficient to au- in the election made by those who do" thorize the issuance of these bonds by the (Oldknow v. Wainwright, 2 Burrows, 1017); school district?" Answer. Yes. The lan- and that a vote by a majority of a meeting guage of the act (section 1, c. 10, Sess. Laws means "a majority of those who choose to 1893) is: "The board of directors of each take a part in the proceedings of the asand every school district in the state of Wy- sembly" (Gosling v. Veiey, 7 Q. B. 406); oming, are hereby authorized to issue re- and the supreme court of the United States funding bonds of such school district, for says: "All qualified electors who absent the purpose of taking up outstanding bonds themselves from an election duly called are of such school district, for any sum not ex- presumed to assent to the expressed will of ceeding the amount of outstanding bonds: the majority of those voting, unless the provided that the qualified electors of any law providing for the election otherwise de such school district shall so elect and deter- clares." Cass Co. v. Johnston, 95 U. S. 360. mine at any regular meeting or at any special See Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Davidson Co. meeting held for such purpose.” There is Ct., 1 Sneed, 637; People v. Warfield, 20 Ill. Do dispute over the sufficiency of the no 159; People v. Wiant, 48 Ill. 263. In the tice given of the annual meeting, and, in case at bar, it appears that all of the electhe absence of any statute providing a dif- tors present at the adjourned annual meetferent rule, the electors present of a school ing of the school district voted in favor of district are competent to act by the vote the issuing of the refunding bonds, although of a majority of the meeting, which would their number was not a majority of the 82 be a quorum. The common-law principle is votes cast at the annual meeting, nor of the that is an act is done by an indefinite body 500 or more votes cast at the charter elecIt is valid if passed by a majority of those tion held in the city of Rawlins, which lies present át a legal meeting, no matter how wholly within the limits of the school dissmall a portion of the whole number entitled trict, within the month preceding. The anto be present they may constitute; and this nual meeting of the school district bad, unhas been deeined applicable to the town der our statute, the power “to adjourn from meetings in New England, which is a near time to time ás occasion shall require” (Rev. approach to pure democracy. The corporate St. $ 3927); and it seems that this power of power in the New England towns resides in adjournment would be inherent in the asthe inhabitants or citizens at large, and sembly of the electors of the district to sethese form the constituent body. If the cure full information on any subject to be meeting has been duly warned or called, voted upon, and even for the sake of the those who assemble, though less than a ma- convenience of the electors of the district. jority of the whole, have the power to act As the meeting was properly and legally for and bind the whole, unless it is other- called under the notice prescribed by the wise provided by law, and those who are statute, and in this notice was inserted the absent are justly and conclusively presumed proposition of refunding the bonds, under the to assent fully to the action of those who express direction of a previous special meet. attend. Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 277, ing of the district board, it seems that more and cases there cited. The authorities seem than ordinary care was used in notifying to be uniform on this point, as there is a dis- the electors of the district that the propositinction between a corporate act to be done tion would be voted upon. The appointment by a definite number of persons and one to of a committee to report on the proposition, be performed by an indefinite number. In and the adjournment to a subsequent day

V.39P.00.8—56

to afford them sufficient time to report, show sue of $23,000 (was legal]; or should not the clearly that the matter submitted was care- authority conferred, if any was conferred, by fully considered. Undoubtedly, full notice the election of May 10, 1893, have been of the submission of the proposition was promptly acted upon and carried out, or does given, and the entire proceedings were con- it continue an indefinite time, if not disducted with a commendable caution. The tinctly rescinded?” Answer. The question is electors present at the adjourned annual not presented in an intelligible form. So far meeting had full power to transact the busi- as we can aid the meaning by supplying omitness of the district intrusted to their care ted words, it will be answered. The bonds by the statute, and they had the right to act voted for the purpose of refunding outstandand bind the district by the action of a ma- ing bonds amounted to the sum of $23,000, jority, without regard to their numerical and this amourt was subsequently reduced strength, and those who remained away are by the payment of bonds by $1,000, but this to be presumed as assenting to their action. reduction in the amount of the original in

2. “Does the word 'people,' as used in se'. debtedness was probably for the benefit of the tion 4 of article 16 of the constitution of the district or in accordance with law. This state, mean the same as the words 'qualified would be the presumption, in the absence of electors,' used in the act of February 10, 1893, any showing to the contrary. The reason of and is this section of the constitution appli- the delay of some 17 months, including the cable to said act?” Answer. The section of time necessarily employed in advertising for the constitution referred to is as follows: “No proposals for purchasing the refunding bonds, debt in excess of the taxes of the current is explained in the agreed statement of facts, year shall, in any manner, be created by any and was owing to the financial stringency county or subdivision thereof, or any city, then prevailing during the period elapsing ber town or village, or any subdivision thereof in tween the vote in favor of the refunding propthe state of Wyoming, unless the proposition osition and the time the bids were accepted, to create such debt shall have been submit- which prevented the disposal of the bonds upted to a vote of the people thereof and by on any terms whatever. This delay would them approved." It is unnecessary to consid- seem to be prudent on the part of the district er this question, or to determine whether a board, and does not seem too remote from the school district is a “subdivision of a county" time of the vote in favor of the refunding of or not. The refunding of the bonded indebt- the bonds. It would be a harsh rule to esedness of the district is in no sense the crea- tablish that such a necessary delay, purely for tion of a debt, for the debt already existed in the advantage of the school district, should inanother form, that of bonds issued under ex- validate all the proceedings taken to refund press legislative sanction, before there was the debt of the district, apparently most adany congressional restriction, and expressly vantageous to it, backed by a unanimous vote excepted from the provisions of the act of con- of the electors of the district voting on the gress restricting the amount of indebtedness proposition. incurred by any quasi corporation in the ter- 6. “Do the words, 'or other subdivision ritories, the original issue of bonds having thereof,' occurring in the proviso in section 3, been under the territorial regime. School art. 16, of the constitution, embrace a school Dist. No. 3 y. Western Tube Co. (Wyo.) 38 district?" Answer. The proviso contains a Pac. 922. See Board of County Com’rs v. permission, extended to the several counties, Rollins Inv. Co., 3 Wyo. 470, 27 Pac. 683; cities, towns, villages, “or other subdivision Powell v. City of Madison, 107 Ind. 106, 8 N. thereof,” to bond its public debt existing at E. 31. The section of the constitution in- the time of the adoption of the constitution, voked has no application to the case at bar. in any sum not exceeding 4 per centum on the

3. "How many votes of qualified electors assessed value of the taxable property in such are required to authorize the issue of refund- county, city, town, village, “or other subdiviing bonds under said law? Is a majority of sion," as shown by the last general assessthose present and voting sufficient?" An- ment for taxation. The agreed facts state swer. Yes.

This question is sufficiently an- that, at the time of the admission of the state swered in the answer to the first question. into the Union, the amount of school bonds

4. "The meeting of May 10, 1893, being an outstanding was less than 4 per centum of the adjourned session of the meeting of May 1st, assessed valuation of the district, as shown and 82 votes being cast at said meeting of by the assessment list for county and terriMay 1st, was 34 votes of May 10th a major- torial purposes for the year A. D. 1889. The ity of the electors present at said meeting, original bonds of the district were issued unand a sufficient number of votes to authorize der legislative authority in 1886, before there the issue of the bonds?" Answer. The an- were any congressional or state restrictions as swer to this question is also comprehended in to incurring indebtedness, and it was neither the answer to the first question.

the intention of the act of congress nor of the 5. "If the action taken on May 10, 1893, was state constitution to impair this pre-existing then sufficient to authorize the issue of $22,- contract. The congressional legislation ex000 [of bonds) on January 1, 1895, the debt of pressly excepted the bonds issued prior to its the district having been reduced $1,000, and enactment, as these original bonds were, and the vote of May 10, 1893, authorizing the is- neither the state constitution nor any act of

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »