The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-06-18
VALIDITY OF BONDS.
Two Important Suits Against
the City.
FIVE PER CENT. DEBT LIMIT.
Complaint Made That Proposed issue
OF Bonds 10 Invsiid-News OF
the Courts.

Yesterday two suits were Sled in the superior
eouyt Of King county against the city, which
present for judicssl review all the legal ques-
lions which have been agitating the municipal
authorities for several months One OF these IN
a 70 the validity OF the bonds Issued oy VIRUS
of the election Of June /, 1859, and the otner ~
q 70 the power OF the city TO issue bonos iof tne
Improvement OF Broadway under the system Oh
s'peyment by bonds provided Tor by the nc"
charter.
The bond suit Is brought by A. J. Baker, Fred
!. sander and J. A. Moore, by Battle d shipiey'
against the city of Seattle, Harry White, d. ".
Miller, C. W. Ferris represented by Corporation
Counsel Jacobs and against y. W. Harris q W,
represented BY Burke. Shepard d WOODS. Inc
complaint il very yoluminous, and wouio oc-
cupy page OF the PosT-ISTELLIGgscsk iIs
main points are now, however, wen known 70
citizens, as they have been discussed IN ING
newspapers during the past four months
Briefly they are that the defendants named
are about 10 enter into contract with n W.
Harris a. Co for the delivery OF bonds amount
ing to about 10000 70 fund the floating IN
debtedness of Seattle, incurred BY street I'M
provements and the augmentation Of the fre
department The several actions OF the city
council in the negotiations and preparations
for an election for the purpose OF validating the
bonds and entering into such contract are re-
cited IS length.
The riss Of the complaint ia, however, con-
tanned in the objections raised These are as
follows:
First-At the dates of issue of each and all the
warrants mentioned in classes 2 and 4, epecf-
Aed in the ordinances Nos. zoo and ,107, begin
ming with warrant No 4.25l OF December 2, 1889,
payable out OF the road fund, and others bear
Ing even date, and those Issued subsequently, in
either Of said classes 2 snd 4, the Indebtedness
OF said city heretofore lawfully incurred and
still outstanding, together with the amount OF
Indebtedness then attempted 70 be incurred by
issuance OF each of such warrants respectively,
amounted 10 more than per cent. of the
sessed valuation of the taxable property of the
city, the amount OF which assessment s was sle,-
ol6,900, whereof per cent. Is sl6O,169
seeond-That the date OF the issuance OF each
oil the warrants In class that were issued and
dated on or after May 3, $780, payable out of the
road fund. and at the date of issuance of each
of the warrants included IN class 4, the indebt-
sdness OF the city heretofore lawfully incurred
and sill outstanding, together with tho indebt-
ednesS heretofore attempted 10 be incurred by
the issuance of said warrants, included in classes
l,2and s. issued prior 70 May 3, 1890, and still
outstanding. and together with the amount of
indebtedness then attempted to be incurred, by
after said date respectively, amounted TO q SUN
In excess of IL per cent. of the taxable property
sessment, without an election held for the pur-
pose OF authorizing said Indebtedness before
mourning IL
Third-Thai prior to May S, 1890, there had
outstanding and wholly unpaid, sundry war
rants, commonly known as "street improvement
warrants, payable ont of street improvement
FUNDS. which warrants were issued for grading,
curbing etc. certain streets in the city, and the
amount OF said warrants were and are not in
eIuded In the warrants classified in said classes
l707. And prior TO May s. 1890, said city pro-
ceeded TO widen and extend Front, Sec
ond, Commercial, South Second and South
Third streets, and established GER
snn ava at hn nnFfh
ner of Front street and Yesler avenue,
eondemnfng such real estate as was necessary
tor such purposes, the indebtedness incurred
thereby being made charge upon all the
private property within the corporate limits of
said city. And at the dates OF the issuance of
al the warrants included in classes and 4, that
were dated and issued on and after May 8, 1890
the primary and absolute Indebtedness OF said
city, heretofore lawfully incurred and still out
standing, together with the amount of said
street improvement warrants, and that of the
I'D condemnation indebtedness. and the
Indebtedness heretofore attempted to be
incurred by the issuance of the warrants
prior to May S. 1890, and still outstanding,
and together with the amount of the indebted
ness then attempted to be incurred by the
Issuance OF each such warrant issued on or after
May 5, 1890, amounted 10 sum in excess of S
Per cent of the value of the taxable property in
said city, ascertained by the last assessment
previous TO the mourning of the said indebted.
ness; and that neither the alleged Indebtedness
constituting the excess OF that sum over the
amount of said per cent, nor any part OF the
same, was incurred or attempted TO be incurred
for supplying said city with water, artificial
light or sewers.
Fourth-That there is no authority of law for
ratification of such Indebtedness after IL has
Fiith-That the notice OF election was void,
anasmuch rs the ratification ard the authorize
ton OF bonds required separate notices; this
questions the validity of ordinance l,707.
sixih-That no part of the bonds are for water
or sewer purposes this raises the question OF
the order in which Indebtedness may be In
Cured.
seventh-This is the same practically as the
nrh objection, the other part OF the ordinance
being questioned.
Eighih-This questions the validity of the in.
definite amount, $4,000 or SO much less as
may be required" etc.
Ninsh-fhat the bonds ought to have been
offered TO the highest bidder az q matter of pub
lie policy.
Tenth-The contract Is declared void because
was signed at special session, at which all
The members were not present, although there
was more than quorum.
The case will probably be argued before Judg G
Lchtenberg, but each side declares its determin-
alton TO carry the decision TO the supreme court.
The other suit is brought by ]. f. Austin and
John III. Carr with the same counsel in the
other case, against the city OF Seattle, Mayor
Harry White. Comptroller c. W. Ferris. Treas
urer W. L. Arnes Jesse F. Cochran, W. v. Rine-
hart aud G. II. Heilbron, OF the board OF public
The question was raised as 70 whether the
city may issue bonds guaranteeing payment for
the improvement of Broadway, provided the
rroperty-owners, who are primarily liable, fail
70 meet their obligations The proposed issue is
for sl2,247, OF which s5,56S 50 10 directly charge
able TO the city. The acknowledged indebted
Ness of the city is reeited. and the complaint is
that these bonds will represent 8 city indebted
ness of such character as should be submitted
20 the people for ratification. But even that
cannot be done, because the Indebtedness for
general municipal purposes is already in excess
OF the constitutional limit
This raises directly the much-disputed point
whether the city, before having exhausted
Its first 5-per-cent limit for general purposes.
inears further obligation for water and sewerage
purposes, can then continue to utilize the re-
mainder of its first per cent, or is barred from
further debt except for those special purposes.
ne corporation counsel has already outlined
ms eeiense. IL lie, ia short, that street improve
nlsns chsrgeahle against private property are
s .sSen general municipal purposes as con-
emp1Ased by the charter, and that the law
no"s no such thing as contingent liability in
'Hs sense sought TO be established.
TAYLOR STARE.S TRIAL