Routt v. Barrett

• Citation: 396 Ill. 322,71 N.E.2d 660
• Decision Date: 17 March 1947
• Docket Number: No. 29850.,29850.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: ROUTT et al. v. BARRETT et al.

396 Ill. 322

71 N.E.2d 660

ROUTT et al.

v.BARRETT et al.

No. 29850.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 22, 1947.

Rehearing Denied March 17, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Cornelius J. Harrington, judge.

Suit by William Byrum Routt and others against Edward J. Barrett, Secretary of State, and others to enjoin the defendants from disbursing public funds for the payment of expenses incurred in submitting a law to the electorate. From a decree of dismissal the plaintiffs appeal.

Decree affirmed.

Sharl B. Bass and Alfred Kamin, both of Chicago, and Drach & Howarth, of Springfield, for appellants.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (William C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow and James C. Murray, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees Edward J. Barrett et al.

William J. Tuohy, State's Atty., of Chicago (Jacob Shamberg and Gordon B. Nash, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees Michael J. Flynn et al.

MURPHY, Justice.

On May 22, 1946, pursuant to the power given by section 8 of article 5 of the constitution, Smith-Hurd Stats., the Governor issued a proclamation calling an extraordinary session of the General Assembly to convene May 24, 1946. The purpose, as stated in the call, was in general to enact a law of laws and to amend existing laws to provide for payment of compensation to persons who served with the military or naval forces of the United States in the recent war with Germany, Italy, Japan and other nations; to provide for the issuance and sale of bonds of the State and for taxes to pay the principal and interest of the bonds sold. During such special session Senate Bill No. 1. hereinafter referred to as the Bonus Act, was adopted and on June 14 it received the approval of the Governor. The law provided that it was to be submitted to a vote at the general election of November 5. Ill.Rev.Stat.1946 Supplement, p. 40.

Plaintiffs, who are veterans of World War II and presumably entitled to benefits under the act, are also citizens and taxpayers of this State. Acting for themselves in such capacities and for and on behalf of others similarly situated, they obtained permission of the circuit court of Cook county to file a suit to enjoin Edward J. Barrett as Secretary of State, Arthur C. Lueder as Auditor of Public Accounts, and Conrad F. Becker as State Treasurer, from dispersing public funds for the payment of expenses incurred in submitting the law to the electorate. The application to sue the State officers was made pursuant to the statute. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1945, chap. 102, par. 14.) The county clerk of Cook county, members of the board of election commissioners and the county treasurer of said county were also named as defendants. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin them from expending county funds in submitting the law to a vote. Plaintiffs moved for a temporary injunction. The State and county officers moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion for a temporary injunction was denied and the motions to dismiss were sustained. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to this court.

The cause was not docketed in this court in time to have it submitted for decision at the September term. Plaintiffs petitioned for an order, which if it had been allowed, would have taken the cause from the usual course and made it possible to submit it for decision during that term. The obvious purpose of expediting it was to obtain a decision before the November election, so that if it should be held that plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief, the writs could issue before the election. It is well settled that courts have no power to prevent the holding of an election at the suit of a taxpayer. Daly v. County of Madison, 378 Ill. 357, 38 N.E.2d 160,Fletcher v. City of Paris, 377 Ill. 89, 35 N.E.2d 329,Payne v. Emmerson, 290 Ill. 490, 125 N.E. 329. Courts cannot pass on purely political questions. The prayer of the petition was denied but in doing so it was recognized that plaintiffs' amended complaint contained allegations that they were citizens and taxpayers of this State and that as such they had rights that might be affected by the Bonus Act over which a court of equity could exercise jurisdiction. That these rights would be preserved even though the decision was not rendered until after the November election. Since the cause was submitted, parties have filed an authenticated copy of the proclamation of the Governor declaring that the act received a majority of the votes as required by law and that it is now a law of this State and in full force and effect. When the decree of the trial court was entered, the statute had not received affirmative action of the voters to make it a law, but plaintiffs, in asserting their claim, urged the same grounds which are now presented in this court. The amended complaint and the motions to strike presented the questions that are now urged on this appeal. Under the circumstances, it would be futile to remand the cause to the trial court so that the decree would post-date the election of November 5.

Soon after the conclusion of World War I, a law was adopted by a vote of the people which directed payment of compensation to the veterans of that war. Several of the sections of that act are substantially the same as the provisions of the present act. The validity of the prior act was sustained in Hagler v. Small, 307 Ill. 460, 138 N.E. 849. The questions passed upon in the former case are not represented here.

The Bonus Act is divided into four articles. The first prescribes who may be beneficiaries and receive compensation. It provides that the State borrow $385,000,000, or such part as may be needed, to pay such compensation. Bonds are to be issued in series and dated and sold as needed. Each bond is in the denomination of $500 or some multiple thereof and payable within 25 years from its date. Provision is made for redemption of said bonds. The bonds are to bear interest, payable annually at the rate of not more than 2 per cent per annum.

The second article of the act contains three sections and purports to amend the Illinois Horse Racing Act as amended. The amendments proposed make provision for the imposing of a privilege tax upon those who are licensed under the Horse Racing Act to conduct and operate racing meets. The third article purports to amend the Cigarette Tax Act by imposing tax upon the business of those engaged in sale and distribution of cigarettes. The fourth article provides for a third source of revenue with which to pay the bonds. It directs that a direct annual tax shall be levied each year while any of the bonds remain unpaid, the amount of such levy to be fixed after making allowance for the moneys received from other sources of revenue for such purpose. Article 4 also contains provisions prescribing the form of ballot and the directionsfor submitting it to an election and the notice to be given. The scheme of raising revenue to pay the bonds assumes that the taxes derived from the Horse Racing Act and the Cigarette Act shall be the primary source and that the general property tax shall be secondary.

Plaintiffs' first contention raises a question as to whether the proposition directed by the Bonus Act to be submitted to the people was submitted in violation of section 18 of article IV of the constitution. The constitutional provision referred to deals with indebtedness of the State and the means of paying it. It directs that the General Assembly shall make such appropriations as may be necessary to meet the ordinary and contingent expenses of State government covering a certain specified time. Provision is made for meeting casual deficits or failures in revenue with the limitation upon the power to supply such deficiency in that it shall not exceed $250,000. As to other debts, it provides that ‘no other debt, except for the purpose of repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, or defending the state in war, * * * shall be contracted, unless the law authorizing the same shall, at a general election, have been submitted to the people, and have received a majority of the votes cast for members of the general assembly at such election. The general assembly shall provide for the publication of said law for three months at least before the vote of the people shall be taken upon the same; and provision shall be made, at the time, for the payment of the interest annually, as it shall accrue, by a tax levied for the purpose or from other sources of revenue; which law, providing for the payment of such interest by such tax, shall be irrepealable until such debt be paid: And, provided, further, that the law levying the tax shall be submitted to the people with the law authorizing the debt to be contracted.’

Section 4 of article 4 of the Bonus Act provided that the Secretary of State should cause publication of the act to be made once each week for three months at least before the election and that the publication should appear in at least two daily newspapers, one of which was published in the city of Springfield and one in Chicago.

Section 3 of article 4 of the provides that ‘The proposition of contracting the debt of.$385,000,000.00 and issuing bonds to that amont and of levying and imposing taxes sufficient to pay the interest on such bonds as it accrues and to pay off and discharge the principal of such bonds within twenty-five years from their date in accordance with this Act shall be submitted to the People of the State of Illinois at the general election to be held on Tuesday next after the first Monday of November, A.D. 1946, on a separate ballot to be in substantially the following form.’

The form of ballot prescribed contained the heading: ‘Service Recognition Ballot’ and the proposition directed to be printed on the ballot was as follows:

‘Shall the State of Illinois contract a debt of.$385,000,000.00 and issue bonds to that amount maturing within 25 years after their date, pursuant to ‘An Act to provide payment of compensation to certain persons who...