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

Iowa, IS. And If the making OF such con-
tract creates no debt within the meaning
of constitutional inhibition, then II the
debt is afterwards authorized by popular
vote and the contract thus becomes abso-
lutte, the debt has its origin at the time OF
the authorizing vote or at later time, not
previous. Thus. we are forced to regard
the item of $a6S. 81 20 in the proposed lssie
of bonds as a corporate debt not yet Gre
ated, but which will take its inception
from the election expected to authorize the
bonds; debt, therefore, which falls last III
the order of time among the debts. exist
ing or proposed, of the city. 1t viii pres
emily appear wherein the order OF time IN
the inciiTring of the several items of cor
porate debt is material.
The existing valid indebtedness of the
city is as follows, incurred in the following
order: Grant street bridge bonds. 5000;
warrants drawn on the road and IRE funds
(those issued against them up TO the date
when the 1 u per cent limit of total debt
was reached), S220, 900, less possibly very
small amount of the earliest warrants
among them, already called III and paid !;
water-works and sewer bonds, $685., 600;
total, about 81, $4,000. Five per cent. of
the current city assessment roll IS about
81 300, 600; so thatthe present valid city in
debtedness falls only $4,000 short of the 5
per cent. limit. If the amount of pur-
ported but void Indebtedness. upon the ex-
cess warrants above mentioned, is TO be in
cluded in testing the conformity of the
city's total debt to the constitutional
limit Ia doubtful point). then We are
already far beyond the per cent. limit;
for the amount of the warrants exclusive
of any interes) specified in this bonding
ordinance, is $293. G67.50 in excess of the
valid $4,000 thereof. But taking the
most favorable view. we have a margin
left of only about $105,000 this side of the
r 4
ditional debt proposed to be incurred at
the bond election, for the expense of widen
ing the streets and establishing the public
square above mentioned, is $26S, 1910. We
are brought face TO face, then, with the
question: Can the city incur debt to pay
for the widening of streets and establish
ing public square which. added to all
previously existing corporate debt, will
make a total exceeding per cent. but not
exceeding 10 per cent. of the current as
sessed valuation?
The corporation counsel thinks that the
city can. The supreme court, in the Met
calte case relative to the water and sewer
bonds, has plainly indicated that the city
cannot. Let us contrast the utterances of
these two authorities. The corporation
counsel, III his opinion on hle IN the city
clerks Office relative to the validity of the
proposed bonds, given in response To the
mayors call for an opinion, iIrst gives the
CttIItHt dSSSSocu NdiudblOl Vi property III
the city, and then states the present
bonded Indebtedness ut $4,000 (This
statement, made in the preamble of the
ordinance as we'll as III his opinion, is in
accurate, overlooking, as it does, the So
Geo OF Grant street bridge bonds.) He
then states that 1.-THE indebtedness can
never exceed 10 per cent. OF the assessed
valuation. After per cent. of indebted
ness has been reached for general pur-
poses. another and additional per cent
of Indebtedness may be created by bond or
otherwise by three-fifths vote of the
people, and for the named purposes of
water, hight and sewers" He then says:
'.The $685., 900 bond issue did not exceed
the per cent. limit for that purpose"
which is absolutely incorrect, as the as
sessed valuation at the time of the author
ization and issue of those bonds was but
10000 eco, of which . per cent is $50 900.
He concludes: ''Sixth-Now, in my opiII-
ion, general indebtedness may exist up to
or under % per cent. of the assessed
valuation by the consent of the people,
and an additional Indebtedness may be
created by the consent Of the people for
water and sewerage, provided the whole
does not exceed 10 per cent. of the assessed
valuation OF the property III the city, and
bonds may be issued for both classes of in
debtedness, provided the 10 per cent. limit
is not exceeded. The issue of the bonds
for the special or enumerated object does
not exhaust the power of the city council"
What this statement means, each reader
must determine for himself. The writer of
the opinion certainly nowhere says explic-
lily that he believes the bonds proposed
will be valid; yet it is TO be hoped that it is
really intended as the writer's well