The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-07-18
THE BONDS ARE VALID
supreme Court Sustains the
City on Every Point.
fuLL TEXT OF THE DECISION.
eereet Improvement obligations to Be
p.id From . Special Fund Are
Not Part of the Debt.

oryrrrA, July l7.-TSpeciaL THE su-
.veme court this evening handed down
he following opinion in the Seattle bond
! .sse entitled, "a j. Baker et al. VS.. City
# Seattle ct al, respondent" appeal from
King county
On the frss day OF June, 1891, an election was
AID ID the city of Seattle under the act of March
Issf entitled: San act to enable cities and
tens TO validate certain warrants and other
ea,srsfsons and evidences of indebtedness on
fhe mart Of such cities and towns issued by
ne corporats authorities thereof in excess OF
fbsir legal authority. and declaring an emer-
re.cy therefor The proposit ions submitted
q this election were TO validate indebtedness as
biiovs:
c,sssI-wsrrants drawn payable out of the
rued fund OF said city and dated and issued
q eundry DAYS between September q, 1859. and
November II, 1889, both inclusive, numbered
CON $40 10 4,029 OF the year 1Sas, both inciu-
I'VE, the face amounts whereof aggregate the
rIsss 2-warrants drawn payable out of the
rsd fund OF said city and dated and issued on
mndry days between November Is, Iss9, and
February 3, $50, both inclusive, numbered
from 4o30 % 4.3s0 of the year 1ss9, and from to
% of the year 1880, both inclusive, the face
amounts whereof aggregate the sum OF s9i 567.73
Class 3-Wsrrants drawn payable cut of the
msdry days between February 26. 1870, and
August 2, 1890. both inclusive, numbered from
El 70 2.7s6 OF the year 1880, both inclusive, and
BE lace amounts whereof aggregate the sum of
Gas 4-warrants drawn payable out of the
frr fund of said city and dated and issued On
mndry DAYS between May ,, 1890, and August 1e,
$50 both inclusive, numbered from 33l TO 5ss
both inclusive, the face amounts whereof aggre-
uts the sum OF 81, ISLE.
The vote in favor of vaiidation was very
rxely in excess of the three fifths majority re-
CURED By the act. and the Indebtedness covered
by q stands validated unless there are constitu-
6onal reasons against it. At the same election
there was also submitted the proposition TO fund
this Indebtedness, when validated, By the issu-
snce OF bonds in pursuance of the act of March
I, is9is entitled: IAN act authorizing cities and
towns TO submit to voters therein propositions
70 fnnd the Indebtedness of said cities and
t1Hss, by the issuing of bonds therefor, at the
nns election at which the previous mourning
asEch Indebtedness or any part thereof may
bratffed"
This latter proposition was also carried by an
equally large vote, and the city OF Seattle is pre-
pairing 10 issue bonds, and 70 prevent their issue
appellant brought his action to restrain the mu-
nicipal authorities from proceeding therein.
Paragraph IL Of his complaint states the princi-
pal grounds Of his objections to the bonds,
which are as follows:
First-That at the date of the issue OF all the
warrants proposed to be validated, from warrant
No 4,2ol, in class 2, dated December 7. 1889. for
the sum of s32s7 and payable ont of the road
fund OF said city, its absolute indebtedness, ex-
Guiding these warrants. was $3.50. I69. which was
! per cent of the taxable properly of said city,
according 70 the last previous assessment there
Of, August 30, 1883, the assessment having been
fi6016,90o.
second-That at the date OF issue OF all war
rants proposed TO be validated from warrant No.
- .f.en e
36s1. payable out OF the road fund of said city,
its absolute indebtedness excluding these war
rants, was s2f0,2JS5o. which was Ii per cent. of
the taxable property Of said city according to
said assessment.
Third-That there were outstanding and not
included in the above mentioned $40, 253 so of
absolute Indebtedness, nor in any OF the war
rants claimed 70 have been validated on the 5th
day of MAY. 1890, certain "streef improvement
warrants" issued under and by virtue of section
D. chapter B. of the charter OF the city OF Seattle,
granted by the territorial legislature February 4,
1ss6, amounting in all to S503.si7, which should
be considered as part OF the general indebted
ness of said city.
Fourth-That prio- TO May 5, 1890 the city of
Seattle had, by virtue of the power conferred
upon IL by section OF chapter OF its said char
ter OF 1885,, condemned and taken certain lands
10 said city TO widen and extend Front, Second,
South Second and South Third
streets, and to establish q certain public square
at the northwest corner OF Front street and Yes
Ter avenue; that In the course of such cendsm-
allowed against it in the total sum OF s247 600,
which sum should be considered as part of the
general indebtedness of said city. for the reason
that said city has taken possession of said lands,
but has paid no part of said awards and has col
lected less than per cent. OF the same from the
prorerty assessed 20 pay therefor
Ffth-That at the dates OF the issuance OF all
The warrants in classes and 4. issued after May
) 100, that is TO say, beginning with warrant
Nc SSs for the sum of $40. payable out OF the
Ere fund of said city. and Including said war
mt and all warrants dated and Issued subSe-
gently thereto. and included in classes and 1.
&c absolute indebtedness of said city, II said
street. Improvement warrants and said condem-
nation awards were part thereof, exceeded
per cent of the taxable property OF said city rs
appeared by the assessment OF August 50, 1889,
to-wit. So, s3S
sixth-That there has been no vote of said
city to authorize its indebtedness 70 be in
creased beyond IL per cent, other than the vote
Of June /, 1891.
The answer of the city admitted the facts
stated in the complaint to be true but alleged
afsrmatively:
Fir~t-Thaf by section of the act of February
., $50 fsets OF lS9o, p PSI, all OF the indebted
OF the assessment Of 1850 and not in excess OF III
per cent thereof was validated and made the
LEGAL Indebtedness thereof
sec0nd--Thst on February d, 1soo. the abso-
lutte Indebtedness OF the city of seattle. inciud-
Ing the Indebtedness thus legali1ed, did not
reach the limit of Ia per cent, nor was that
limit reached until April -, lsSn, and after the
issuance of warrant No. .s9+. on the road fund,
for the sum Of yi.575. included in class 2
Third-Tbst by the terms of said street i'm
proyement warrants and under the law govern
Ing their issuance they were not primarily
general liability Of the city OF Seattle. but were
ehargeahie 10 and payable out of particular funds
70 be derived from local assessments.
foHrth-That said condemnation awards were
likewise not primary or general liability OF the
city. but were chargeAbls and payable out OF
local assessments only.
The plaintiff iuterposed a general demurrer
20 the answer, upon the argument of which the
court sustained IL rs a demurrer 70 the com
paint and dismissed the action.
Before proceeding to pass upon the other fea-
lures OF this case. we viii speak of two classes
Of alleged Indebtedness, which would absorb a
very large portion OF . eitys debt-ereating
power IL they were 10 be counted as part of its
ecnsttutional liabilities, Wig; the street i'm
provemen; warrants and the condemnation
awards
First-Under thee charter Of 1856 the city OF
Seattle bat the power 10 make street improve
ments, either with funds drawn directly from
We treasury or by creating local assessment DIS.
trless upon the property within which . special
lev could be laid 70 pay for the entire expense
a us NarrSnta were the result OF rcoceedings of
.he .S,ssr eisss They show Upon their lace that
t-eS arc ssNFsete out OF the street improvement
iund under the ordinance The agreements
win Contractors for the work were 20 the effect
taS1 Naes were 10 BE- paid ''out OF . special
taha- IL IS iais 20 prekume that special funds
have been provided hv the CITY in all these
cases, and that in due course the money win he
reslised % psy OF the warrants What might
q the ilso5llt al the city In case il should fail
neglect refuse 10 collect ira Sra.is ~ f.xes in
s1ch cases Is not for IS 20 say here usufsees
that there IS no present liability on the psrt of
the city 20 ray cut Of its treasury In Arrenti
v ian FRANCISCO, to Cal, -, there vas no re-
st-ietlon upon the use OF funds derived from
speciSi assessments. IL went into the tressury
and Its identity was lost besides which the
contract sued upoa was general in its terms