Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-04-04
MUNICIPAL INDEBTEDNESS.

this Territory from mourning an in
debtedness in excess Of four per cent
Of its taxable property. The city in
question has involved itself in debt
to an amount equal to about six
per cent Of its taxable property.
According to information given
to US, It has not been definitely
determined for what purpose all OF
the funds raised in excess Of the
legal limit were expended, but one
sum Of money, amounting to sever
al thousand dollars, is known to
have been borrowed from a certain
party, by the City Council, and TO
have been laid out for the purchase
OF certain property, after the city's
legal limit Of Indebtedness had been
reached and passed. All this oc.
CURED under an administration
which has been superseded by an
election.
The new City Council has
passed n resolution repadiating
the excess Of Indebtedness, and the
question is, has ii a right to do this,
and if so, and If the resolution shall
be passed, what recourse remains to
the party who loaned to the city the
sum Of several thousand dollars,
above referred TOT
The Indebtedness incurred by the
City Council in excess Of the limit
fixed by congressional statute, can
not be collected out of the peoples
money. 1t was to protect the people
from this very danger that the law
was passed. 1t is, therefore, per-
fectly proper for the new Council to
repudiate the obligations which
were incurred contrary to law. In
fact the new Council has no right to
pay them, and an injunction would
lie to prevent them from doing so.
were any taxpayer to take the mat
ter into the courts.
The remedy OF the party who
lent the the money referred to lies
in an action against the officers
personally. They were guilty of
malfeasance in office, and are
liable in a civil action for the conse-
quences. If they filed bonds, their
bondsmen are also liable. Every
officer who aided in mourning the
unlawful Indebtedness, and every
officer who voted for it, is individu-
ally liable and so are his bondsmen,
ifhe gave bond.
But the municipality is in poses
sion Of and is deriving benefit from,
the property purchased with the
money unlawfully borrowed. Can
it continue TO own it without. in
fact, paying for it? Without further
investigation of the case and its
circumstances than We have been
able to make, we are Of opinion that
the rule that ''fra1d vitiates every
transaction into which it enters,s
would apply to the purchase of that
property. It was bought with
money obtained in violation of law,
and therefore the purchase and
transfer are subject 10 being set
aside, should a court of equity see
fit TO so order. The seller might be
required 10 return the purchase
price, or the court might order the
property TO be used to indemnity in
nocent parties. The whole matter
would be subject TO the rules Of
equity and the orders Of n court Of
competent jurisdiction. The people,
however, would have to be pro
tected, for such was the purpose of
Congress in enacting the law refer
red to.
We have no idea that the ex-city
officials who committed this viola
ton Of law did so wilfuIly or even
knowingly. In all probability they
were ignorant Of the law Of Con-
gress which they have broken, and
did not know Of the restriction it
placed upon them in respect to
municipal Indebtedness. But public
officers are supposed to inform them
selves relative to the laws which
have been established for the gov
eminent Of their official actions,
and they are responsible personally
TO innocent parties who do business
with them.