The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-06-28
THE BOND QUESTION.
Validity of the New Series to
Be Tried Tomorrow.
POINTS RAISED FOR THE CITY.
History OF the Events Which Have Led
to the suit-Eight Objections
Raised to Their Issue.

Tomorrow the supreme court, sitting &C olym-
pia will hear the appeal Of A. ]. Baker, Fred T.
sander and James A. Moore against the city OF
Seattle. Mayor Harry White. City Clerk Miller
Comptroller Ferris and ". w. Harris & Co. The
appellants win be represented by Battle
shipiey, and the city by Judge Jacobs and Mr..
T. r. shepard.
II is an action to enjoin the issue by the city
of seattle funding bonds of 1891 in the sum Of
$4,000 for the funding of certain 'road fund
and "fre fund" warrants issued by the city be
tween September 81. 1889, and August
&c, 1890, both inclusive, amounting. with
interest, to July /, 1891 lthe date oil
issue of the proposed bonds), to s4l9,0 and to
enjoin the sale and delivery of the bonds TO the
defendants, n. W. Harris & Co., pursuant TO q
contract for their sale made on April 10, 1891, in
advance OF the authorization of the issue
BY popular vote, which il claimed 70
have been obtained at an election held on
June l, 1891. The defendants jointly answered
the complaint, and the plaintiffs demurred to
the answer. After hearing, the superior court
held that the complaint did not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and
therefore sustained the demurrer as a demurrer
TO the complaint; and the plaintiffs electing to
stand on their complaint, the court certified
that the cause involved the determination of
questions of law upon which 1t was desirable to
have the opinion of the supreme court, and ac-
cordingly on June "a rendered judgment in
form only, in favor of the defendants, dismissing
the complaint, from which the plaintiffs have
taken this appeal.
The facts shown by the pleadings and the
questions OF law arising thereon are stated in
respondents brief as follows:
The assessed valuation of the taxable property
in the city OF Seattle for the year 1885, in force
from August 81, 1859, till August 80, 1890, was
fHn Tho n cifips fuQffr indahf-
edness without authorization by popular vote
was limited by Washington Territory statutes
lsS7:S eh- ., sec: dne law on the
question, except so far as the same may be held
70 have been modified or superseded by the act
of February 20, 1890. below mentloned) to per
cent. of the assessed valuation. On December z,
1899, the debt OF the city-no part authorized by
popular yote-reached the sum OF sl60, ass A,
thus passing the / per cent. limit, and II has
ever since then exceeded tina. limit; and all but
the first Sl0.2is.44 of the "road fund" and sire
fund" warrants that the bonds in question are
designed TO fund have been issued on or since
that date and in excess of that limit. The
first question of law arising in this case, there
fore, is whether or not the act OF February %,
1890, 10 q valid law-the appellants claiming that
the act is unconstitutional.
On April %, 1890, the debt of the city-no part
authorized by popular vote-reached the sum OF
$24o,255, thus passing the IA per cent. limit pre-
scribed by Section OF Article VIII of the state
constitution, and by the act OF February 26 1880,
as that within which municipal indebtedness
not assented to by popular vote must be con-
fined, and it has ever since then exceeded that
limit: and all but the first $i97 $50 of the road
fund" and sire fund.- warrants to be funded by
the bonds have been issued on or since May 3,
1890, and in excess OF the II per cent limit
But under the authority OF the act OF March z,
1891 the corporate authorities of Seattle ordered
an election on June !, at which all classes of
warrants as submitted for approval were ratified
by popular vote. The second question is whether
or not the statute. ordinance and vote were
effective TO ratify debt beyond the power of the
city TO contract at the time ii was attempted
On May S, 1890, there were outstanding sun
dry "street improvement warrants" previously
issued by the city, aggregating about s303, s17.
These warrants were the outgrowth of proceed
ings taken for the improvement of streets in the
city, in accordance with the provisions of sec
ton of chapter II of the city charter of 1886
The city had also, under section ii of the same
chapter, taken possession of the Yesler and
other cer sSa whose tcompensang value
SIT OF "street improvement warrants" issued
under section of the charter OF 1886, and
$4,000 Of awards for property appropriated un-
der section IL OF that charter, be added to the
acknowledged Indebtedness of the city out
standing on said May 5, 1890, which was SGT 016,
the aggregate Is $50, 1888, sum in excess OF the
limit OF per cent OF the assessed valuation OF
the city. The respondents claim that the street
improvement warrants and the condemnation
awards in question are not city Indebtedness
within the constitutional provision.
The brief goes on to relate that the question OF
bonds were submitted at the same election. The
appellants claim that these questions could not
lawfully be submitted at the same election. and
thus the election is void as to both matters;
while the respondents insist to the contrary.
The validity of the act of February 26 1890, is
also defended by respondents, and the claim
that the amount, $4,000 or less, should have
been precise 10 declared to be ill-founded.
The power of the council to make q contract
with Harris & Co. without putting the bonds to
the highest bidder is made an objection by the
appellants, and submitted. The fact that the
ordinance was signed at called meeting of the
council, at which all the members were no,
present, is also made ground of complaint
The points relied upon by counsel for the city
to sustain the bonds are as follows:
The act of February 26, 1890, is valid. repeats
by implication the statute of 1SS7-s limiting the
debt-incurring power of cities (as well as re-
moves the limit set In the Seattle charter OF
1857, ratifes and yaiidates municipal debts in.
Cured prior to it's passage within the limit OF
III per cent. of assessed valuation, confers upon
cities and towns power thereafter to incur debt
20 the full extent of tho constitutional iimita.
tions, aud authorizes the issuance of funding
bonds for any valid municipal indebtedness
The vote cast at the Seattle election on June
/. 1891, by way OF ratification of the previous at
tempted incurring without assent by popular
vote of city Indebtedness beyond the IL pei
cent. limit but within the per cent limit by
virtue of the act OF 1891 (ch. 1917 and ordins
assent by popular vote TO the mourning of such
Indebtedness, and the ratification related bacl
to the time of the original attempted iucurrins
OF the debt, and validated il as of that time
Street improvement warrants issued in pur
snance OF section s, and condemnation award,
made in pursuance OF section IL, of the sesttls
charter OF lSS6 are not Indebtedness of said cit,
within the meaning of the constitutional limi
tatlons OF municipal debt
An election TO ratify municipal debt in excax
OF the ~ per cent. limit, under chapter 1871 O.
1891, and an election to authorize the issuance
OF bonds 10 fund the debt thus to be ratified. TO
gether with other debt, can lawfully be held n
the same time and places, under AUTHORITY o
chapter 1872 of 1891.
The authorization by popular vote of the issu
spce OF the bonds in question, in sum not pre-
scribed by the vote but merely limited TO ,
maximum OF $4,000, or such lesser sum a
might be sufficient, was valid.
The city of Seattle can lawfully contract II
good faith for the sale of its bonds at an agreed
price in advance of authorization of the issue b,
popular vote, and even in advance OF the yalida
ton by popular vote OF indebtedness 20 b.
funded by the bonds.
The signature OF a bill for an ordinance BY "a,
president OF house of the Seattle city council
IN authorization Of its passage as required b.
the city charter, may be affixed at a specia
meeting OF the house notwithstanding the ca
tor the special meeting does not mention IA,
signing OF that particular bill as one OF the OBJ
tects OF the meeting.
THE MINING BUREAU CASE.