The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-09
DEBTS TO BE FUNDED.
Delegate Shipley Discusses Fer
ris's Proposition.
LEGAL VIEW OF THE QUESTION.
He Favors the Proposition to Issue
Bonds for Remainder of tho In
debtedness Except Part.

Delegate 8. NJ. shipiey several days ago Sc
cured the passage through the city council of .
resolution requesting the joint finance commit
tee OF the two houses to confer with the comp
troller and report at once to the council the
present status of city finances, together with a
plan for the funding OF the floating indebted
ness by the issuance OF bonds.
Comptroller Ferris responded in a very COM
piete synopsis OF the city's financial condition,
and recommended the funding OF s2-1.1l5.73 on
account OF concentrations: $l36, .6S TO take
up judgment warrants s269, $50 for the general
fund Indebtedness and sl24000 for special i'm
provements.
1t was referred to the committee on finance,
but meantime Mr.. Shipley was interviewed on
the subject, he having taken the initistory pro-
ceeding and always exhibiting great interest in
the subject
81 have given that subject some attention,
and while would not advocate being hasty in
the matter, the situation of municipal affairs.
as to the debt problem, does certainly require
prompt and decisive action.
"As to the legal questions involved, would
say, yes large part can certainly be bonded:
but l do not think it possible, at the present
time, to include the whole amount. In the first
place. you have an amount of s27l, 1l5.73 class
ihed as condemnation awards, a debt incurred
on account of the widening of streets after the
lire. In the case of Baker VS.. the City of
court held that this class did not constitute a
part of the city's general indebtedness and no
Objection can be urged against funding this
class on the ground OF its being indebtedness
prohibited by the constitution of the state.
The item OF $l24.000. special improvement in
debtedness, can also be funded under the rule
laid down by the supreme court in that case.
Then there ia the s136241.6S, on account of
Judgments recovered against the city; this is q
class of indebtedness which is not affected b y
the constitutional inhibition, but on the con-
trary the holders thereof are entitled to their
remedy, compelling tax levy to satisfy their
claims IL they choose to resort to it; therefore,
that may also be included.
"But the difficulty is found In relation to the
general indebtedness proper. In the case of
Baker VS.. the City of Seattle the court held that
debts in excess of III per cent. could be con-
tracted under the law of February &c, 1890, only
where the people had authorized the contract
ing OF them prior to their being incurred: that
after they were incurred they could be ratified
only by authority aud sanction of both the legs-
lature and a three-fifths vote of the people
voting at an election held for that purpose. The
law OF March z, 1891, gives authority for the sub
mission to a popular vote the question of ratif-
cation of all debts contracted prior to its pas
sage. Thus we find no legislative authority for
the people to even ratify that part incurred
since March 7, 1891. Therefore, all that portion
must be left out, as a vote of the people would
be futile without the necessary legislative
authority. The mistake was in not so framing
the law of March that it would apply to In-
debtedness accruing subsequent to its passage
"After ascertaining the amount which we can
lawfully fund, certainly think we should lose
no time in taking the necessary steps, as the
money markets will probably be more easy
about the first of the year, and bond purchasers
more numerous than at any other season. The
money distributed in this city would be very
beneficial