The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-07-26
THEY ARE VALID.
Oakland's School Bonds
Good in Law.
Decision by the Supreme Court
Showing That the City Had
the Right to Issue Them.

The Supreme Court has decided that the
Oak land schoolhouse bonds are valid.
The bonds. amounting to 100000. were
issued by the city of Oakland under an
ordinance passed by the City Council in
September, 1891. The bonds were ap-
proved and accepted by well-Kn0wn New
York banking firm. and the city ordered a
tax to be levied for the purpose of meeting
those bonds and the interest accruing ON
them. The money was wanted for the
purpose of erecting public schools on GER
tain lots purchased by tie city.
From this tax-leyy 4 citizen named We =
more appealed, at the same time giving
notice that NO money was to be paid cat
from the treasury on account Of these
bonds or interest thereon The case was
heard before the Superior Court of Ala
media County, which upheld the bonds
From this judgment an appeal was taken.
Wetmore's contention was that tie
municipality of the city OF oakland had no
power TO ISSUE Its bonds for the copstrnc-
tian OF scboolhouses for the reason that
the management of its schools is vested IN
R1ard OF Education, and that any bonds
TO be issued for school purposes must be-
authorized by that body. Against this
contAntion was presented the fact that the
city of Oakland WAS governed by free
holders charter. which was approved by
the Legislature Ia 1889. Under this
charter the governmen Of the School
Department was vested in q Board of
Education, vested with authority to build
schOOhouses upon plans approved by it,
but the work of building the school
housss was to be carried on by Board Of
Public Works. Moreover, that it was
expressly declared by the charter that the
Board of Education had no power to con-
do lei hi IN
city exceeding in any year the income and
revenue provided for the school fund for
such year. Also. that whenever the City
Council decided that the public interest
required the construction of any perma-
nent municipal building the cost Of which
would exceed tho income provided for in
one year, it might pass an ordinance to
incur debt for such purpose and pro-
coed with the work.
The Supreme Court held that the case of
Kennedy vs.. Miller, cited by appellant.
did not apply. This was question decid-
ing the right of the Treasurer of the city
of San Diego to demand from the County
Treasurer tho custody pr certain public
school moneys apporti|ned to the school
rived from sources outside the municipal.
ity. There the court decided In favor of
the County Treasurer.
1t was decided that the education of
youth was properly included within the
functions of municipal government A
corporation was but branch
of the State government. and was estab-
ilshed for the purpose of aiding the LegIs-
lature in making provision for the wants
and welfare Of the public within the terri
tory for which it was organized, and that
IL was for tie Legislature to determine the
extent to which 1t would confer upon such
corporation any power to aid it In the dis.
charge of tho obligation which the consti- |
tuition had imposed upon itself. The |
bonds in question were those Of the mu- |
nicipality Of the city of Oakland, and
heir validity was to be determined by the |
power of the municipal corporation to issue |
Them.
Held. therefore. that the city of Oak
and had the power under the provisions |
II the act of March ~. 1889. to issue the |
bonds in question.