The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-08-10
THE LEGAL ISSUES.
Questions As to the Water
Bonds Raised in Court.
BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENTS
Interpretations or Constitution. Statute
and 0rdinance-Prsncipls and
rschnicaiity.

In May last the people Of Seattle voted Ct
special election in favor of issuing bonds
70 the amount Of 1855 COZ for the purchase
OF spring Hill waser-works and the extern.
SION OF the water system, and for the CON-
struction Of sewers. IInuer an act passed
Dy the last Legislature three-ffths vote
was required TO make the issue legal. At
the special election held for the purpose,
out OF I'll votes cast all but is were
In favor of the proposition. question
was subsequently raised by Eastern bid
ders Tor the bonds as 10 their validity, be.
cause. while the statute said they must be
assented to by '.tnree-fifths of the Quail.
ned voters voting at an election. y the con.
slitution says ssthree-fifths of the voters
thsreiil." which was held to mean that
tnree-fifths OF all the qualified voters Of the
city must vote afiirmatively Judge I.ich-
tenberg ruled that the qualified voters we're
those who voted.
In order to have the question reviewed
by the highest appellate court of the state,
the council directed the city attorney to
prepare test case and submit it to the SUI
preme court attorney General Met
calie volunteered tolappear as plaintiff, and
fhe mayor and council became defendants.
The briefs were prepared AMI submitted to
the court at iympia on Friday.
The supreme court affirmed the decision
OF the superior courts of King county and
also OF Clarke county. where the same issue
was raised that thfes-fitths of the voters
voting at an election constitute three-fifths
OF the qualihed electors OF an electoral dis.
trlct req Tired by the constitution and laws
OF the state Notwithstanding u verbal diner.
ence IN the phraseology of the fundamental
law and the statutes springing therefrom.
This settles the question as TO the valid
itv o. tie bonds so far as the election 10
concerned.
That, however. does not entirely deter
mine the marketable value of the bonds.
several other points bepg raised 1t had
already b en- ruled by the United States
supreme court that a qualified voter must
be taken to mean a voter who votes and
not one who. although qualified, does not
vote. The same court, as we'll as the SUI
preme court OF Wisconsin has decided that
IAN elector Is one who is qualified to vote,
but voter Is q qualified elector who votes"
The other points raised were of mere
technical character, some RESTING to the
general law and others to the municipal or.
dinance basel upon it. Chief among the
former was that the law provides that spe-
cific Indebtedness may be incurred under
the act in question for supplying a CITY
with water. artificial lights sewers. y As
the bonds were issued for water and sew.
ers only, and not for light. the question
was raised that the city could not avail it.
self OF The act when only two out of the
three purposes were included. 1t was
answered that the act did not contemplate
compelling city TO employ its entire avail
aDle indebtedness, but might use part of il
ct time and Cor either purpose, provided
it lid noF. for all the purposes named. ex.
coed the entire limit. The intention of the
act 1t was held on behalf Of the city, was
TO limit tine total of Indebtedness, not to
hamper the city within that limit.
II will be remembered that the act allows
an indebtedness of per cent. for general
municipal purposes first. and further 3
per cent for special water, light and sew
erag@ purposes, and If the first per cent
is not reached the question need not arise
As to how the second per cent. Is to be APP
propriated. That is. the total amount of
Indebtedness is concurrent and not in Sc
quence. and that any portion of the whole
may be devoted to water, lighting or sew
craze.
The question as to the ordinance was
that it was Illegal, inasmuch as it was in
contravention of the Seattle charter. which
provides that mo ordinance shall contain
more than one subject. which shall be
clearly expressed in its title" The objec-
lion was based upon the ground that the
money was to be used partly for water and
partly for sewerage, making two subjects.
On behalf of the city it was maintained
that the only Subject" of the ordinance
was the ordering of special election and
that the recital of the disposition of the
finds was merely explanatory of the pur-
pose and in harmony with the act which
EXPIRE sly provided for suchIelections.
Another side issue was raised, and that
was the power of the legislature to permit
any portion of an indebtedness to be in
Cured upon a majority vote. On the face
of it there seems TO be conflict between
the constitution and the statute. but it is
not pretended that this provision (although
in the same act) has any bearing upon the
issue OF the bonds. and the question was
not submitted as to whether such a dis
crepancy in one section would render I'M
constitutional an entire act or contaminate
an entirely distinct section.