The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-12-18

as invalid as themselves. and which conse-
quently would invite attack, to the lasting
disgrace of the city
There is one way, and only one, as all
courts and lawyers are well aware, IN
which these warrants, now merely moral
obligations, can be funded into unques-
tionably valid bonds. Let express legIsla-
tive authority be obtained by statute. the
passage of which in the early days of the
coming session can easily be procured, for
the ratification of the warrants issued iii
excess OF the L q per cent. but not IN cx-
cess of the per cent. limit OF city debt, by
just such popular vote, at an election TO
be held for that purpose, as the constitu-
ton requires by way of original assent be-
fore the mourning Of the debt. The con-
stitution declares that no city shall sbe
come indebted in excess of Ia per cent.
without the assent, thus calling for the
assent before the debt can arise; the re-
quired assent to the warrants under dis
cussion was not given before their issue;
and popular vote authorizing the issue of
bonds TO take up the void warrants does
not amount to ratincation of the incur
ring of the debt represented by those war
rants, because ratification in such a case
must be express, and must be given i'll pur-
suance of Legislative authorization so
los U. s., 2S2 But when such leg
islative authority Is given Gust
as it was given by the act of February u,
1880, which act applied, however, only to
debt contracted prior to its passagc), and u
vote of express ratification is given in pur-
suance thereof, the debt unquestionably
becomes as valid as if the vote had been
cast by way of prior assent to the debt
See authorities cited in Dillon on Nun.
Corp, 4th Ed, Sec. 49,, Par. of note.
And thereupon the validated warrants can
be funded, the funding being authorized
by popular vote, if desired, either stimuli
taneously with the vote of ratincation or
at a subsequent election.
8. The indebtedness created by the
widening of Commercial, Second, South
Second, South Third and Front streets and
establishing public square," proposed to
be funded in these bonds, is not existing
Indebtedness of the city at all, and the is
suing of the proposed bonds therefor would
be an original creation of new debt, all or
nearly all of which would be i'll excess of
the constitutional limitations.
The proceedings taken within few
months after the great ire, for the widen
ing of the streets named and the cutting
of of the "Yesler corner" were taken I'M
der section Ii of the old charter, which
provided for the payment of damages
awarded In such proceedings by all assess
ment of dement's to an equal amount upon
the property determined to be benehted.
These were special improvement proceed
ings, then, and created no debt of the city
corporation, but merely debt of the prop
erty assessed as benented, for the collec-
ton of which debt the city was an agent
with certain duties to perform. They no
more created debt of the city than did
proceedings under section of the old char
ter for improvement of streets in the way
of grading and sidewalking them: and the
overwhelming weight Of authority is that
both these kinds of improvement, under
such charter provisions as ours just mcn-
toned, create no debt of the city. Nc
Culloch VS.. Mayer of Brooklyn % Wend.,
ass; Lake VS.. trustees of Williamsburgh, 4
Den., $50 And the city, as such, remained
no less free from liability for these awards
of damages because all the private real
property within the city was included In
the assessment districts established.
But did the contracts made in May last
with Yesler, Boyd the Starr estate, Rine-
hart and Korn convert any part of these
assessment district debts into corporate
debts? Not at all. Those contracts pro-
vided, indeed, for payment to the property
owners named, by the city, of the amounts
that had been awarded to them in the
special proceedings for street widening
etc., with interest, but each of them was
conditioned upon provisO that authority
to pay the amount and issue bonds for the
same should be procured within a time
named by popular vote and thereupon the
amounts should be paid, and that unless
such authorization were procured the
contract should not be binding upon the
city. a contract of this conditional sort
creates no debt fthe city, to be computed
in ascertaining whether its total debt has
reached constitutional limit Burling-
ton Water Company VS.. Woodward, 80