AMY V. tolTT OF GALENA. ���ie'? ���force. The actof January 30, 1857, was merely a consolida- tion of the charter of 1852 and the amendments thereto in one aet, and to enlarge the powers of the city authorities ; but jt does not purport to repeal any portion of the act of 1852 in regard to the levy of this tax, not to exceed 1 per cent, per annum, to be applied on the first of January in each year in extinguishment of the principal of the city indebtedness. �By the third section of the article on taxation it provides a tax of 1 per cent, for the payment of interest on the city debt. So that it conferred an additional po-wer upon the city authorities beyoud that delegated by the act of 1852. The act of i865, which is referred to by relator in his petition, Seems but a re-enaetment of the act of 1857, so far as the tax of 1 per cent, for the payment of interest is concerned, and gives no additional or further powers to the city corpo- ration in reference to the levying of the taxes. �In Galena v. Amy, reported in 5 Wall. 705, it is held by the supreme court of the United States (and that was a con- troversy between this same relator and the same city) that the legislature has no power to repeal, and it was not com- petent for the defendant to plead the repeal of a law which had been enacted and was in force, for the payment of the city indebtedness at the time the indebtedness was incurred. This applies with full force to the provisions of the law of 1852, which was in force at the time of the issue of these bonds, and which remained in force, so far as the obligation of the city to this relator is concerned, up to this time, So that I can see no escape on the part of the city from the conclusion that the law of 1852, which provided for the levy of a taxof 1 per cent, for the extinguishment .of the principal of the city indebtedness, is still in force; and the law of 1857, which provided for the levy of a tax of 1 per cent, to be ap- plied on the payment of interest of the city indebtedness, is also in force. �The change of the mode of collecting the taxes of cities, so that they are now collected by the township and county col- lectors, cannot affect the relator's rights. The town and ��� �
