Opinion of the Court.

But that court had jurisdiction of the offence described in the indictment on which the prisoner was tried. It had jurisdiction of the prisoner, who was properly brought before the court. It had jurisdiction to hear the charge and the evidence against the prisoner. It had jurisdiction to hear and to decide upon the defences offered by him. The matter now presented was one of those defences. Whether it was a sufficient defence was a matter of law on which that court must pass so far as it was purely a question of law, and on which the jury under the instructions of the court must pass if we can suppose any of the facts were such as required submission to the jury.

If the question had been one of former acquittal—a much stronger case than this-the court would have had jurisdiction to decide upon the record whether there had been a former acquittal for the same offence, and if the identity of the offence were in dispute, it might be necessary on such a plea to submit that question to the jury on the issue raised by the plea.

The same principle would apply to a plea of a former conviction. Clearly in these cases the court not only has jurisdiction to try and decide the question raised, but it is its imperative duty to do so. If the court makes a mistake on such trial it is error which may be corrected by the usual modes of correcting such errors, but that the court had jurisdiction to decide upon the matter raised by the plea both as matter of law and of fact cannot be doubted.

This Article V of the Amendments, and Articles VI and VII, contain other provisions concerning trials in the courts of the United States designed as safeguards to the rights of parties. Do all of these go to the jurisdiction of the courts? And are all judgments void where they have been disregarded in the progress of the trial? Is a judgment of conviction void when a deposition has been read against a person on trial for crime because he was not confronted with the witness, or because the indictment did not inform him with sufficient clearness of the nature and cause of the accusation?

It may be confessed that it is not always very easy to determine what matters go to the jurisdiction of a court so as to make its action when erroneous a nullity. But the general

Opinion of the Court.

rule is that when the court has jurisdiction by law of the offence charged, and of the party who is so charged, its judg ments are not nullities.

There are exceptions to this rule, but when they are relied on as foundations for relief in another proceeding, they should be clearly found to exist.

The case of Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 166, is relied on here. In that case the petitioner had been tried, convicted, and sentenced for an offence for which he was liable to the alternative punishment of fine or imprisonment. The court imposed both. He paid the fine, and made application to the same court by writ of habeas corpus for release on the ground that he was then entitled to his discharge. The Circuit Court, on this application, instead of releasing the prisoner, set aside its erroneous judgment, and sentenced him to further imprisonment. This court held that the prisoner, having been tried, convicted, and sentenced for that offence, and having performed the sentence as to the fine, the authority of the Circuit Court over the case was at an end, and the subsequent proceedings were void.

In the present case no verdict, nor judgment was rendered, no sentence enforced, and it remained with the trial court to decide whether the acts on which he relied were a defence to any trial at all.

We are of opinion that what was done by that court was within its jurisdiction. That the question thus raised by the prisoner was one which it was competent to decide, which it was bound to decide, and that its decision was the exercise of jurisdiction. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 202; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 23; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 653; Ex parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 178.

Without giving an opinion as to whether that decision was

sound or not,

We cannot grant the writ now asked for, and it is, therefore, denied.

Statement of Facts.

QUINCY v. JACKSON.

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

Submitted January 9, 1885.-Decided February 2, 1885.

A provision in a city charter, which confers power on the city council to levy and collect taxes annually on real and personal property, to pay debts and meet the general expenses of the city, not exceeding fifty cents on each hundred dollars, relates only to debts and expenses for ordinary municipal purposes; and not to those debts and expenses which can be incurred only by special legislative authority.

An act authorizing a municipal corporation to incur a debt for the purpose of subscribing to the stock of a railroad company, confers authority to levy taxes for the payment of the debt in excess of limit of taxation authorized by law for ordinary municipal purposes. United States v. Macon County, 99 U. S. 582, distinguished from this case.

Defendant in error petitioned below for mandamus against the mayor and aldermen of the city of Quincy, the plaintiffs in error, to compel the levy of a tax to pay a judgment recovered against the city.

The material allegations of the petition were that the judg ment was had upon certain coupons of certain bonds of said city, duly issued by the city in payment of its subscription to the capital stock of the Mississippi and Missouri River Air Line Railroad Company. That said bonds recited that they were issued under an order of the city council, passed August 7, 1868, and an act of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, approved March 27, 1869, legalizing the act of the said city of Quincy in voting said subscription. That there were no funds in the city treasury of said city to pay said judgment. That the special charter of said city, as amended in 1863 by the act of the legislature of said State, provided that there should be levied on all real and personal property, within the limits of said city, to pay the debts and meet the general expenses of said city, not exceeding fifty cents on each $100 per annum, on the annual assessed value thereof. That the legis lature of said State in 1881 gave said city power to levy on all its taxable property, for all purposes other than for schools and

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

the interest on its registered bonds, not exceeding in any year the rate of one per cent. of the equalized assessed valuation of such taxable property. That the revenues of said city, from every source, for the year ending March 31, 1885, after paying the necessary running expenses of said city, and the sum of $20,000, and the surplus above the running expenses of said city upon certain other judgments, in pursuance of certain mandamus writs, would not be sufficient to pay relator's judgment, and that the relator was without remedy except by writ of mandamus. The defendants demurred by general demurrer. The demurrer being overruled, the defendants elected to abide by it, and the writ of mandamus issued as prayed for. This writ of error was brought to reverse that judgment.

Mr. George A. Anderson for plaintiff in error.-Courts cannot clothe a municipal corporation with powers of taxation. They can only compel it to exercise those already possessed. United States v. Macon County, 99 U. S. 582, 591. All such powers of taxation are derived from legislative grant, either express or necessarily implied. Champaign v. Harmon, 98 Ill. 491. And power by implication must arise when the act, out of which it is implied, takes effect. It cannot arise afterwards by reason of failure of existing laws to accomplish their supposed objects. The act of 1863, § 4, clause 3, was the act in force when these bonds were legalized, and was the only authority then existing to levy taxes for payment of debts. It (1) authorized a levy of fifty cents on the hundred dollars and (2) prohibited a levy of a further amount. This law formed a part of the measure of the obligations on one side, and of the rights on the other. Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107, 120. This act has not been expressly repealed. If repealed at all, that was effected by the act of 1869 legalizing these bonds. It is familiar law that this court does not favor repeals by implication. Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 570. The act of 1869 enacted "That the acts of the City Council of the City of Quincy, from June 2, A.D. 1868, to August 28, A.D. 1868, in ordering an election on the proposition to subscribe the sum of one hundred thousand dollars to the capital stock of the Mis

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

sissippi & Missouri River Air Line Railroad Company, and the subscription to said stock, and all other acts of said Council in connection therewith, are hereby legalized and confirmed." It may well have been the intention of the legislature that this debt should be paid like all others out of the proceeds of the fifty cent tax. There is no allegation or presumption that this tax was insufficient for the purpose. If it proved so in practice, it would not follow that the legislature intended to repeal the restrictive clause of the act of 1863. It is a much safer position to assume that it regarded the existing laws as sufficient. Supervisors v. United States, 18 Wall. 71, 81. The Constitution of Illinois, § 23, art. 3, provides that "no private or local law, which may be passed by the general assembly, shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." The act of 1869 showed but one subject in the title the legalization of the bonds. It made no reference to the increase of the taxing power. The object of the act was to place the city in the position it would have been in, had it possessed the power to subscribe, at the time when the subscription was made: it was not its purpose to place the municipality in a different position from what it would have been in by increasing the taxing power. Had the city possessed no taxing powers when the debt was incurred, the case would have been different. This distinguishes it from United States v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381, and Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655. The current of authority is strong against the doctrine of implied powers of municipal taxation. Cooley on Taxation, 200, 209; Chestnutwood v. Hood, 68 Ill. 132. A mere grant of authority to contract a debt cannot by implication repeal a pre-existing charter limitation upon the power to raise taxes for payment of debts. Shackelton v. Guttenberg, 10 Vroom, 660; Leavenworth v. Norton, 1 Kansas, 432; Clark v. Davenport, 14 Iowa, 494. The case of United States v. Macon County, 99 U. S. 582, seems to be identical, in principle, with this case. If so, this court has already decided the question of issue. If not, then the case of Binkert v. Jansen, 94 Ill. 283, upon the same question, is decisive and conclusive. Mr. Carl E. Epler for defendant in error.