Show Moffat Tunnel Bond Validity I Must be Fixed by Supreme Court The Colorado supreme court will pass upon the validity of the Moffat tunnel district bonds before they are issued Suit Sult Suit has been started In the court courtat at Golden in Jefferson county The suit Is in the to form Im I'm of ot injunction pro pro- The plaintiffs plaintiffs Mrs Mary Iary L. L of Denver and Frederick A. A Metcalf of Steamboat Springs Springs- ask that the members of the tunnel commission be enjoined from in any anyway anyway anyway way proceeding with the enforcement enforcement enforce enforce- men ment of the Moffat l tunnel improvement improvement improvement improve improve- ment district law with the sale of bonds or with the assessment or of property within the Moffat tunnel and from proceeding any further under and aud by virtue of the pretended authority conferred upon them by the general assembly of the state of ot Colorado that all of the proceedings taken under and by virtue of the Moffat tunnel improvement improvement improvement im im- provement district l law w by the commission commission com corn mission be lull and void and of no force whatever and for such other and further relief as the court ma may deem meet and proper Members of the tunnel commission commission commission commis commis- sion although declining to go into an extended discussion of the suit before an examination of ot the complaint complaint complaint com com- plaint announced through Norton Montgomery the commissions commission's legal adviser and chief author of the tunnel tunnel tunnel tun tun- nel act that the they are welcoming the suit because a favorable decision b by bythe bythe the supreme court which they confidently confidently confidently dently expect will make the bonds much more saleable an and result in inthe inthe inthe the realization lion of a better price for forthe forthe forthe the securities b by the tile tunnel district Attorney Montgomery announced he lie would file the commissions commission's answer answer an an- at nt qt the earliest possible slate date ate so sous as us not not notto to lose any time in bringing about mi au adjudication of the questions questions questions ques ques- raised b by Mrs l and aud Metcalf It is possible he said that if District Judge Samuel W. W Johnson Johnson Johnson John John- son of the tint first judicial district is willing the case will be tried and taken 11 to the supreme court at once Attorney Edwn H H. H Park ParI counsel for forthe forthe forthe the plaintiffs has promised his help and cooperation in bringing about a speedy speed trial The supreme court Is not in vacation vacation Vacation Vaca tion for the first time in man many years ears during the summer months Following Follow Follow- ing iii the regular July announcement day the court instead of adjourning adjourn adjourn- ing fug for the term simply recessed This step of the court makes It possible possible pos pOSa sible for its members to take up the case and consider it as soon as It is brought up from the Jefferson county county coun coun- ty tv district court No time will be bel l lost st and a final decision can be had by the time the tunnel commission Is read ready to let the contracts for the big bore i Generally speaking the tIte complaint prepared by Attorney Park Pari Is based upon the Interrogatories submitted to the supreme supreme court b by G Governor Shoup when the tile general assembly was considering the tunnel Nil bill The complaint contains all of the questions ques quesa questions asked of of the states state's highest court by the governor but instead of asking the court whether or not nol nota nola a cerain provision of the the act act violates the constitution of the state or the United States the complaint alleges that the constitution has l been ien vio vio- I l 11 Bons Following are an V a eg n v o for injunction injunction in injunction in- in in support of the prayer praet an junction T Tie The e Issuance of the bonds bond will create a cloud on au the pi pr party perty of nf the plaintiffs plaintiffs' and will depreciate the and aud market value of their property will twill prevent them from selling lUng it atas at atus ns us good a n price as it could bo be 01 sold for tOl were it not for tor the bonds levying The methods of apportioning the prete pretended ded benefits to the real estate I were attempted to be made without ra ratio o proportion scheme or plan i ithe the benefits are purely guess work II and that the only benefits which might accrue will accrue after atter the I tunnel has bas been drilled and aud put Into I operation and and they will accrue to td all s' s apra of the property in Colorado and not in the tunnel district alone t The method of apportionment and I i levying assessments creates an unreasonable unreasonable un- un reasonable burden against the property prop- prop I erty in the district and andI I creates liens for an unreasonable length of time and to that extent Is la taking the property without compensation compensation compensation com com- and due process ot of law The pretended assessment is unjust unjust unjust un un- just and without any anT regard to any special benefit that might possibly accrue and It is unlawful unlawful un un- lawful because not based upon distance dis dia- tance lance from the tunnel front foot or or area basis or other basis by which the Justice or reasonableness of the benefits can be measured The so-called so assessment are liens Hell against the lots and land in the thedis district district dis dis- and are subject to tax sale The Moffat tunnel improvement district law is unconstitutional because be because be be- because cause it violates violates' the article forbidding forbidding forbid forbid- ding special legislation and because b by it it the general assembly seeks to delegate to a special commission the power to make ke and supervise municipal improvements to levy taxes and perform other municipal functions The tunnel law violates the fourteenth fourteenth fourteenth four four- amendment to the constitution constitution constitution tion of the United States in that it t abridges the the- rights of citizens in that it denies them the equal protection of or the laws and takes their property proper proper- ty without due process of law The tunnel bill violates the state constitution in that it to create a debt without submission of the question to the qualified voters of the district that the governmental tal powers of Denver a home rule city are invaded and that it attempts to aid private ate corporations the corporations the railroads railroads railroads rail rail- roads The general assembly exceed exceed- exceeded ed its power when it tt enacted the tua tunnel law because the constitution forbids enactment of a law which permits taxation of property for lor the taa construction of a tunnel not d devoted devot devot- voted vot- vot ed to public use and that the lawis law lawis is unconstitutional because all the taa property in the district will wUl be taxed tax tax- ed for tor a tunnel which does not ia la laan an any manner recognized by law benefit benefi t the taxpayers because not one of them Is the owner and operators operators operators oper oper- of ot a railroad or a telephone or telegraph line Mrs and Metcalf the to plaintiffs are wealthy property own owa- ers They have brought the suit It Itis Itis itis is said not for the purpose of obstructing obstructing obstructing ob ob- the construction of of the tunnel but for the purpose of ot hay hair haying h T- T ing the supreme court pass upon tin tha bonds before they are offered to to tile thi public L for investment They The are r i s wing suing for lor themselves and ana for all au other persons situated as thea- thea selves Attorney Park ParI made the following follow follow- lug ing statement regarding the suit salt It Is neither my nor my clients clients' intention or desire to tie up the undertaking undertaking un un- and I will wUl be glad to cooperate co cooperate co- co operate with the commission la fa bringing the matter to a a. a hearing as aa soon as practicable both before ta the th district court and before the supreme supreme supreme su su- preme court should the case case be appealed ap ap- pealed Neither myself nor m my clients are opposed to the construction of ot the tunnel or to paying our fair share of the assessments to pay tin the bonds if such assessments are ever required for such purpose but la In view of the fact that doubts hare haTe been expressed as to the constitutionality of the tunnel act and as to the legality of the procedure which has been adopted by br the under the act and lUd in view few o or of the further fact bet that m my clients are large large- taxpayers I an and In my clients are ore desirous of having the legality of both the act and the commissioners commissioners' commission commission- ers' ers proceedings decided by the tag court so that It will be determined beyond question whether their property property prop prop- erty will be subject to the payment o ot and s security for tor th the thi payment of the bonds bonds' |