The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-08-22
THE WATER BONDS.
Text of the Decision of the
Supreme Court.
THREE-FIFTHs OF THE VOTES.
Constitutional Limit OF indie btedness In
terpreted-Important Opinion
by Justice Stiles.


Following is the opinion Of the supreme
court of the state of Washington in the
water bond case, an amicabe SUIT (No. 76),
James b. Metcalfe VS.. the City of Seattle ct
al, to obtain the supreme courts construc-
ton of Section 6. Article VIII, of the con-
stitution, and the legislation had there
under, resulting in the act of February 26.
1890 session Laws, p. 225). and the act of
March 20, 1890 Session Laws, p. 500. as ap-
piled to the city of Seattle. which was pro-
posing to issue certain bonds for a water
and sewerage system amounting to $685.
coo.
The controversy under the pleadings fairly
bring to this court two questions for answer,
viz:
l. Can q municipal corporation become In
debted for water-works, sewers and artificial
light works in any sum greater than per cent.
of its last assessment roll?
2. To carry an eli ction, where the question is
that of increasing municipal Indebtedness
above IA per cent. OF the assessment roll, must
the majority of three-ffths required be three
ffths of all the persons entitled to vote at the
election. or tnree-ffthrs OF those who do vote
thereat?
The circumstances which caused the presen.
tation of the first question seem to have been q
dispute as to whether, under the terms OF the
constitution, and the acts referred to, the mat
ter of providing waters, sewers and light for the
Inhabitants of a city is municipal pur-
pose," or a 'strictly municipal purpose"
l. is fundamental principle in the law OF mu-
nicipal interpretations that, although they are
usually given a large discretion in the matter of
raising and expanding money, no money can
be raised or expended for any but strictly
municipal purpose" and that limitation is just
as much laid upon the cities of this state with
regard to the first "a per cent Of Indebtedness
as ii is upon the additional So per cent. which
must be authorized by vote, although, in the
latter case the trainers of the constitution saw
at to express the limitation.
But in our view there Is nothing in the consti-
tuition which forbids the idea tsat works of the
character of those under discussion are those OF
strictly municipal character, and therefore
proper works for q municipality to undertake
and maintain, either out OF the current revenue
or the first 5 per cent of indebtedness. The
Limitation declared by the constitution is that
whenever the ndebtedness has reached per
cent. it must stop unless more money is needed
for water or light works or sewers And in this
connection, we may say In response to argu-
ment at the hearing, that we regard the lam
guage of the constitutional provision as reading
in the distinctive. as though it were "water, ar
tificial light or sewers"
The city of Seattle was authorized by its
charter (Acts of 1886, pp. 240 241, 244) to build
own and operate such works and 10 levy taxes
therefor 1t lacked only the power to incur in
debtedness. This power 1t did not receive from
the chapter of the constitution on municipal in
debtedness, 1t is true for that chapter contains
no grant of power to these interpretations. 1t
leaves them entirely to the Legislatures; but,
deeming it certain that future legislatures
would permit such indebtedness, It prescribed
the limitations under which the power, when
enA -. s-.A -
it must not go. The power was conferred upon
the city OF Seattle by the acts of the legislature
referred to, We conceive, In very clear terms,
though the appellant suggested doubt on that
point even.
These two acts are entitled to be construed to-
gether. they having been pass at the same
session; and we see no necessity to bold that
the act of March 26 repealed that OF February
26. On the contrary, the latter act seems to
form fitting complement to sections and of
Its predecessor, celebrating the machinery by
which they are to be operated and leaving no
room for hasty, careless or uuderhard proceed
ings. BY the last act the legislative body OF the
city must first express, by ordinance. the inten-
ton OF the city to avail itself of its power to
inaugurate and maintain such works specify
Ing distinct plan or system to be followed,
with the estimated cost thereof, and the ques
ton Of the adoption of the plan proposed must
be submitted to the voters of the city. Clearly
the intention was, that whereas such works
are likely to demand large and unusual expend-
itures. the wisdom OF which. in some, cases,
may be doubtful the people who would have
| to furnish the means should be fully spprised
OF the whole scheme and that there should be
definite, well-considered and practicable
scheme presented for their rejection or sdop-
ton. II no authority to incur Indebtedness be-
yond the current revenue Is asked for, the pro-
position may be carried by q majority vote.
But IL II is intended that the city shall incur
debt for these costly works, the majority to
carry the proposition must be three fths, and
the Indebtedness must be created by the issu-
snee OF bonds to run not exceeding twenty
years at rate of interest not exceeding per
cent The three-fifths m jority having been OBJ
tanned, there is no further obstacle to the issu-
ance of such bonds. although they amount to
more than per cent of the taxable property of
the city, providing that with their issuance the
total indebtedness of the city is not increased to
more than 10 per cent OF such property.
In response TO the second question we have
not the least hesitation in answering that the
three-f fths majority required to carry an cleo
ton in favor OF increasing municipal indebted.
ness, is three.ffths Of those persons who act
ualy vote at the election, ana not three-ffths
| of all those who may have the right to vote
thereat The language of the constitution is.
that no municipal corporation shall become In
debted beyond IA per cent of Its taxable prop
erty without the assent OF three-ffths of the
voters therein voting at an election to be held
| for that purpose" How could the words be
palmer? II is three-ffths of the voters voting.
not of all persons who might vote, but may or
may not do so. The word therein" placed be.
| tween voters" and ''votng" merely qualities
the persons who might vote, not the body of
voters who must vote to constitute a lawful
| majority. AT certain elections many persons
| residing outside of q city have their voting
places assigned within the city limits; but at
these particular elections 1t is only the ysters
therein residing therein-who can vote. Per.
haps longer phrase might have served to re-
move all doubt from every mind, but to us tine
Interpretation seems clear as ii is
In every other instance, We believe where the
| constitution prescribes the majority REQUIRED to
| carry particular proposition submitted tn the
electors, II Is majority of those who vote upon
that proposition. See Art. VIII, Sec s. authoriz.
ing the state TO contract debts: Art XII Sec . of
| the removal OF county seats; Art XII Sec 10. of
the adoption OF charters by cities; Art xiv
Secs. IL, OF the location of the seat OF govern.
/ nen'; Art XIII, Sec. l. OF amendments TO the
constitution, and Sec. . of the calling of
constitutional conventions Against this il
may be ssid that in each of the instances
mentioned the majority REQUIRED is only a ms.
iority of those voting on the question sub
mitteoi but when We observe that in ali these
cases the questions are to be submitted at gen.
erai elections, where the whole number of votes
cast may lar exceed those cast for and agains,
the particular proposition. the general policy of
the constitution becomes clear in no case 10 re-
quire an absolute msjoFity of all those
who vote at o general election TO carry
special proposition, but only a major.
Ity OF those who see fit 10 exnress
themselves upon the proposition. Aud this
policy being 50, why, in the case of municipsl
Indebtedness, should we, without any special
or apparent reason, argue plain words out of
a