Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1891-08-28

For what purposes ar" the one hun
dred and tifty-five thousand dollars OF
borrowed money 10 he expended?
The statute says, ior strictly mu-
niciPal purposes
What do these words mean as used
in the act' What did the legislature
intend by the use of these words
This matter al the application OF
proceeds does not relate to the validity
OF the bonds, and have not been re-
to express any opinion in re
gard to it.
But | take it upon myself to say
that one thing is very certain, viz:
That the provisions OF the act under
which You are proceeding done apply
to borrowing money and issuing bonds
for the purpose OF constructing sewers
owned or controlled 10y the city. Nor
can amy part OF the money borrowed
under the provisions OF said act he
expended i'll supplying the city with
water, lights or Il system OF sewerage.
section Ii of the act makes this too
plain to admit OF controversy.
The discretionary power oi the
Council III cxpending the proceeds of
the sale OF bonds does not extend so
far a. to override Il positive provision
of the statute. The Council Las no
power of any kind to misapply the city's
funds
may also say that, il the city was
standing in need OF system OF sewer
age or of money for that purpose, the
Council should have proceeded under
another and different act.
take it upon myself to refer to
another matter of some Importance.
1t has been alleged (and it may or
may not he true) that prior to March
I. 1891. an Indebtedness had been in
CURED by the issuing of warrants and
other evidences of Indebtedness, which
together with all other then existing
Indebtedness of the city, exceeded one
and onc-half per centum OF the tax
able property according to the last as
scssment previous to the mourning OF
such Indebtedness, without the assent
OF three fiithS of the voters therein
voting ut an election held for that pur-
pose.
If such allegation be true, the Coun-
ell should have proceeded to submit
the proposition to ratify such indebt-
edness in accordance with chapter
CXNNI, laws OF 1891, p 267.
But if such allegation should be not
true, and there was any existing in
debtcdncss which the city was DESTROYS
OF bonding, the Council should have
proceeded to submit to the voters a
proposition to fund the existing in
debtedness Of the city, byissuing bonds
to be used in redeeming the outstand-
ing indcbtnesS and other evidences of
! indebtedness.
Either or both OF the above propo-
sition could have been submitted to
the voters upon Chapter CXNXII.
But neither of these propositions
was. or could well be, submitted to the
voters at the special election held
August 18th.
here insert Section q, Article VIII
of the State Constitution -
SEC. 6. No county, city, town,
school district or other municipal cor
poration shall for any purpose become
indebted in any manner to an amount
exceeding one and one-half per CEN
tum of the taxable property i'll such
county, city, town, school district or
other municipal corporation, without
the assent of three-iifths OF the ;oters
therein, voting at an election To be
held for that purpose, nor in cases re-
quiring such assent shall the total in
debtedness at any time exceed five per
centum of the value OF the taxable
property therein, to he ascertained by
the last assessment for State and
county purposes previous to the III
curing OF such Indebtedness, except
that in incorporated cities the assess
ment shall he taken from the last
assessment for city purposes; Procided,
That no part of the Indebtedness al
lowed in this section shall be incurred
for any purpose other than strictly
county, city, town, school district or
other municipal purposes Proeided
further, That any city or town with
such assent may be allowed to become
indebted to larger amount, but not
exceeding five per centum additional,
for supplying such city or town with
water, artificial light and sewers when
the works for supplying such water,
light and sewers shall be owned and
controlled by the municipality"
Compare this with the statutes OF
1891, on pages 2Gl, 262, 267 and 26S.
Note the difference in language.
Upon the whole my opinion on the
principal points is this: When the
bonds in question have been executed
with the proper recitals endorsed and
signed by the Mayor and City Clerk,
and have passed into the hands of
! bona fde holders for value, their va
lidity cannot be successfully assailed,
unless an excess of Indebtedness be-
yond constitutional limits has teen
created. That the proceeds arising
from the sale of the bonds may be
used for the purposes contemplated in
the act, and for no other purpose
whatever. That neither the bonds nor
the money borrowed can be used, di-
erctly or indirectly, for the purpose OF
supplying the city with sewers.
Nv examination of the statutes OF
1891 has suggested one other question
/ viz:
Can the money or bonds proposed
to be borrowed and issued be applied
to redeeming outstanding warrants
and paying an Indebtedness created
and existing prior to March Z, 1891?
| Upon this question | express nc
opinion. A case is now pending in
the Supreme Court of the State, Cease
No. 266,) in which the question will
perhaps he decided.
| But il is no time now for the COun.
Gil to halt or attempt to retreat.
! The bonds have received favorable
vote and should be issued.
When issued, it is not necessary that
they should be put upon the market
and sold in any greater quantities
than the necessities of the city re.
quire.
As to the municipal purposes" to
which the proceeds of the bonds may
be lawfully applied, that is matter
for after-consideration. The time to
cross bridge is not until you get to
it,
The city is undoubtedly in need of a
system of sewerage, and if money is
necessary for supplying it, let propo-
sition for that purpose be submitted
to the voters, and they will respond as
they did at the election on the 18th OF
August.
Respectfully submitted,