The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-07-18


may not become indebted IN any sum for many
purposes beyond their current revenues without
consent OF the legislature, on the other hand the
legislature has no power TO force on them any
undertaking which will involve the expendi-
ture OF money without the consent OF the mu-
n.clpal authorities or people. The legislature
eminent authority to create debts for municipal
purposes up 70 the constitutional limit OF IL
per cent, al their own discretion. Section OF
the ace CT February 26, 1880 and other acts OF
that session, vent further and permitted fur
tner Indebtedness up TO 9 per cent Limit when
ever three-nfths of the voters therein sssentsd
tnereto This we conceive to mean that before
any such additional debt shall be lawfully ere
ated an election shall have been had and the
authority voted. But here the vital question
appears, whether the legislature 10 bound by
the terms OF the constitution so that il can
EnGer no circumstances permit a vote of
assent TO be taken after the benefit
ior Unicn The debt Ii sought TO be undertaken
has been received. The state, by its constitu-
ton, consented that there be debt of ) per
cent, the legislature asserting thereto. The
language OF the constitution Is not certain 70
the effect thst the legislature must provide for
an antecedent vote. Construction alone can
make the language certain That construction
Is under rule 70 be in favor OF freedom OF the
legislature, the constitution being an iastru-
nient containing restrictions upon the legisla-
i've power which would otherwise be universe.
ana unlimited The legislature has by the act
of March 7. 1891, placed its construction upon
the constitutional provision, and unless it has
Done Violence TO the necessary construction OF
sAS CONSTRUCTION Is eQLlteu 10
stand What are the facts? The legislature has
iuiI power TO consent to the authorization of in
dsotedness beyond per cent. 1t ald the people
alone are concerned: and they have agreed that
up 10 the date of the at OF March the vote
might follow the act of the municipal snshor-
itles IN accepting service and goods for the use
OF the city; and that, having been 30 accepted,
they may be paid for. II ID not the best policy
Tor 4 city 10 pursue. It's obligations beyond the
II per cent. are void. The legislature might re-
Use to exercise its authority, and the
OF assent But, having done so, we believe IL
would be overstepping the bounds OF judicial
necessity were we TO hold their acts 70 be void
and unconstitutional. Circumstances haye lit
tie weight with judicial decisions, but We can
not TAI 20 remember that our constitution was
framed while the smoke of Overwhelming and
unprecedented calamity yet lowered over some
OF our most thrifty and promising communities;
that the very provisions We are discussing,
which make large allowances for municipal In
deotedness, were framed with view 10 their re-
habilafIon and future preservation, and the leg
lEsation which followed was cast in the same
mold, through universal desire that in no
credit OF the state be furnished or deprecated.
The vote By which the valuation in this case
was accomplished was not merely three-ffths TO
two-hfths, but more than ten 10 one, showing
an almost unanimous desire OF the people OF
Seattle 70 assume and pay their excess liabilities.
II would border upon tyranny were the rest of
sentiment We do not find any impeachment in
the constitution, and therefore the act of March
Is conclusive.
There were some minor objections to the issu-
ance OF the bonds in question, which we shall
now notice. The city council passed ordinance
No. l,7o6. calling the election on June /, on the
question OF the valuation of the excess indebr-
edness. and it also passed ordnance No. 1,707,
calling an election upon the same day, under
the act Of March z, 1891 %. $3.50, TO determine
whether bonds should issue covering the in
debteduess sought to be ratified and other exist
n ~ Qrnh IN 10
four classes of warrants hereinbefore mentioned.
The additional points raised mainly relate 10
the ordinance No. l.707. and will be treated
seriAtim:
/. There was but one notice Of election
embracing the two ordinance Under the
statute but one election was provided for, al
though there were TO be separate votes on the
separate PROPOSITIONS We hold that but one
notice was required or proper.
2 Before the election was ordered the city
authorities entered into q contract with =. W.
Harris & Co.. of Chicago, the substance OF which
was that the election should be called, and that
whatever of the warrants in the said four classes
should be valid warrants on the LIST day OF July,
| 1891. should be funded by the issuance OF city
& Co., they agreeing to take them
upon the terms specified. The ques-
ton whether this contract should be
carried out was also submitted to vote at the
! election under ordinance No. LOO. The act of
February rs, 1870, simply provided in general
terms for the issuance of bonds to fund indebt-
municipal authorities. In Yesler VS.. Seattle /
Wash, 3lS, we held in relation TO . similar mat
ter that II was not proper for the city council 10
submit these details TO the popular vote, and
under the act of February 20. 1890. il would seem
| that IL Is not necessary that the question of
| funding shall ever Be submitted, but the ACT of
March q 1891 10 269l, seems TO imply that in
the cases covered by it the question OF funding
shall be submitted, though the details of the
| funding are here omitted also. Recurring.
however, 70 the act of March "A 1890 p 215) which
coniers powers on cities of the first class, we
find in the fourth subdivision this authority:
"Fourth-To borrow money for corporate pur-
poses on the credit of the corporation, and TO
issue negotiable bonds therefor II such condi-
tons ana in such manner as shall De prescribed
in the charter. The charter OF October l, 1890,
OF the city of Seattle, In the fifth subdivision of
section -, article 4, empowers the city council
TO borrow money for corporate purposes on the
credit of the city and authorize issue of negotia-
bic bonds therefore. in accordance with the
charter and constitution and laws of the
state. This under the law would leave the mat
ter OF issuing bonds 70 the wisdom OF the
council, both Is % the propriety OF the issue
and the details But by section 80, article T.
there is this further provision: when loans
shall be created exceeding IL per centum OF the
taxable property OF the city, ana bonds therefor
issued by the city under this charter, the city
council, in authorizing and providing for the
same, shall direct the times and manner of pay
mcnt and rates Of interest, but TO such bonds
shall be Issued except as provided by law, nor
unless the proposition for creating such iadebt-
edness shall have teen previously submitted TO
y
special election, Of which thirty DAYS notice
shall have been published in the city official
newspapers and such proposition shall have
then received the assent of three-flfths OF the
voters voting al such election. The mode and
manner OF submitting such proposition to
voters shall be prescribed by ordinance,
and in case such three-ffths of the
voters are in favor OF such loan the city
council may. after such election. bv ordinance
confirm the loan, but no bonds shall De issued
therefor until after such confirmation, nor
until the city council shsll have made specific
provision tor the payment annually of the in
tereSt on such bonds, and for fund 10 pay the
interest On such bonds ana 4 sinking fund 10 b.
raised by annual tax AZ least Eve years before
tina bonds are due sufficient 30 pay sud discharge
such bonds ST maturity. sn1 the isjth sn1 prop
eTty OF the city shall Dc ana IS hereby ed gec for
final payment 0f any and all such loans" In
aSmuch part OF the bonds proposed in this
instance were 10 fund Indebtedness In excess bf
| IL per cent. section 81 made u necessary to
SG1mit tha entire proposals in substantially
the form which il was submitted, Sud there was
10 error.
sued and voted was $4,000 The face Of the
warrants u be funded is $S70, 97944 and the in
tgrcsi accrued thereon was estimated in ordi-
nance l.-07 - be SIS, 90 50. making a total of
( sii9,IS0 Objection IS made that the PROPOSE
ton 20 fund was indefinite as To the amount
anu for that reason cannot stand. There is no
perceptible reason why the sum needed could
not have been reached without leaving wide
a margin As the difference between sieO,09o and
s4l9.lS0, but the orly authority given city off
GERS is 70 issue bonds 70 an amount sufficient TO
take up The warrants, the face vslue o. which Is
tSI0,91a+4. and the Legal interest thereon. and
until il shall zppear that they are about 70 ex-
coed that authority there would he no Just cause
OF complaint IL IS presumed that al the off,
GERS concerned IN thu issuance OF these bonds
viii strictly follow their authority IN the prem
as, - sny departure thereTrom would subject
them ami their bOndsnen 10 personal liability
some question was made IS 70 whether
sMn..~ -