The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-12
THE CITY'S AFFAIRS.
New Officers to Be Appointed
in January by the Mayor.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Coming Convention OF Cities OF the
First Class-Probab1e Appointees
duty OF Licensees.

preaching. In January several new ap-
pointments must be made by the mayor.
He will appoint successor TO Maj. W. V.
Rinehert, and the choice seems to lie be-
tween Alderman Wolfe and Delegate Cal.
ligan. A park commissioner is to be ap-
pointed to succeed w. +. Burgess. A
library commissioner will also have to be
appointed in place of Junius Rochester.
who is serving out an unexpired term
and another must be appointed in place OF
+. C. Washburn, elected to the state
legislature. The term of DIR. +. A.
Churchill as member of the board OF
health will expire in January, and his
successor must be appointed. Port War
den Jelich's term will also expire on jan
uary /, as he is only filling out term.
The board of aldermen and house of
delegates will in March have to elect a
new presiding officer. President j. =.
Sweeney has presided over the board with
dignity, and his experience as member
during the previous term has been very
valuable to his colleagues. DIR. ]. S.
KIoeber will also probably be reelected
president of the house of delegates, as his
tenure has given great satisfaction to the
house. If either Mr.. Wolfe or Mr.. CALI
gan should be appointed commissioner of
the board of public works, the house to
which he belongs will have to elect sue
cessor.
The convention of delegates from Taco
ma, Spokane and Seattle, which will prob
ably meet at Tacoma December 90, for the
purpose of agreeing upon needed munich
pal legislation, is an important event.
Seattle will be represented by Mayor Rom
aid, Corporation Counsel Donworth, Al
dcrman Brewer, Delegate Kloeber and
City Comptroller Carson.
Mr.. Donworth has just rendered an ex-
haustive synopsis of the charter and ordi-
nance provisions governing the issue of
local improvement bonds issued for street
grading. 1t is very important, and is az
follows:
/ have been requested to give an opin-
ion az to the nature of the local improvement
bonds which the city is issuing for the purpose
of paying for certain street improvements.
These bonds are issued in pursuance of Sec
ton OF Article VIII of the city charter, which
rs amended authorizes their issuance in certain
cases and provides that the holder or holders
shall look only TO the particular local improve
ment fund for the payment OF either the princi-
pal or interest thereof This section. prior to
the amendment adopted in March last, author
lied the issuance of bonds to be paid from the
proceeds OF the local assessments, but bound the
city absolutely for the payment of both princi-
pal and interest in the event that a sufficient
sum was not realized from the assessments.
The validity of this section, as it formerly
read, was passed upon by the supreme court in
the case OF Austin We. Seattle, Washington
State, &C.,, and it was held that the provision
was unconstitutional in that it provided for an
increase in the Indebtedness of the city without
the assent OF the voters expressed at an cleo
ton.
The constitution provides in Section OF Ar
VIII, that no city, town or other municipal cor.
poration shall for any purpose become indebted
in any manner to an amount exceeding TX per
centum OF tho taxable property of such city,
town or other municipal corporation without
the assent of three-fifths of the voters therein
voting at an election to be held for that pur-
pose.
Tho bonds now being issued have never been
submitted to The determination OF the voters nor
In any manner authorized by them, and as the
city is now and has been for two or three years
past indebted to an amount exceeding Ia per
centUm. Of its taxable property, these bonds can
not constitute any part Of the city's indebted
ness.
In the case cited the supreme court of this
state said:
at is a rule established by many authorities
that when municipal corporation is about to
order Improvements of this class 1t may do so
without making itself primarily Liable for the
cost thereof. The city Of Seattle has already
done so TO large extent, and this court has held
that the unpaid warrants issued BY ii, drawn
upon and payable out of the special assessment
funds, do not constitute part of its municipal
Indebtedness within the meaning of the consti-
tuition, but 1t is competent for such a corpora.
ton To make itself primarily liable Tor such i'm
provemeuis aud to make their cost a par. of its
debt"
In order to prevent these bonds from being
general debts of the city. and thus falling
within the constitutional prohinitson, the char
ter and ordinances provide that the holder OF
the bonds shalt look solely To the special fund
for payment The form of the bond is pre-
scribed by ordinance No. 2,3os. which requires
that there shall appear upon the face thereof q
statement that the bond is not a general debt
OF the city of Seattle and has not been author
ised by the voters Of the city as part OF its in
dettedness Tho requirement was undoubtedly
intended not only to protect the city against a
general claim on the part OF the holders of tho
bonds aud to give notice of the restricted liabI-
ity of the city. but also to prevent injury to the
eity's credit by the circulation OF them among
the public as ordinary, general bonds OF the city
of Seattle
The supreme court OF the United States in tho
case OF United States VS.. Fort Scott % T. s. l6O
held the city of Fort Scott absolutely liable 10
the reason that the purchasers had not been in.
formed that the city expected them to look
solely to the special fund. The court there held
that IL the corporate authorities intended the
contract with tho holder of the bonds to be lin
tied 10 a pay Gncnt from the special assessments
good faith would require All explicit avowal of
such purpose il the bOad itself, or in some other
form, by language brought home to the nur-
chaser which could neither misieat nor be-
misunderstood. In the case of the city of Fort
Scott. however, IL does not appear that there
was any constitutional prohibition against the
eniargire OF the ci,y's debt II there had been
such provision, IL is probable that the bonds
would not have been held good as a general
debt of the city.
The plain intent OF the charter and ordinances
Is that these bonds shah stand in the same re.
lstlon as the warrants issued for local improve.
ments where the mode OF immediate psymep.
IL adopted. The bond IN the one case ana tina
warrant in the other represent the same nature
ci contract. viz: a limited liability on the rsri
OF the city requiring IL 10 pay only from the
r-oecets OF the special fund provided by the
assessment This being their purported in,cn.
tion. the bonds valid as q pledge of .ueh
moneys as shall be realized from the proceed,
of the special assessments They would not "a
valid If they purporte.i 70 add any thing to the
general Indebtedness Of tie city
The question has been asked, what reus1v
hiss the holder OF these honSs IN case the assess
snents fail the p.ceee dings are Irregular The
question of the liability OF the city on street i'm
movement warrants in similar cases is now
psnding IN the supreme court, and A. able law
yers differ with re as 20 the probable decision
10 be rendered, can now DO no more than ask