The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-16
sEATTLE's OBLIGATIONS.
The Attitude of the City Toward TIT
Questionable Warrants.
InItekl States IN


We have recently received an exceed
ingly interesting letter from gentleman
In Seattle. in the course of which he
speaks ar length regarding the outstand-
ing warrants of that city. We print his
views on the subject. not only because
they viii be read with interest by the
holders of Seattle warrants IN particular.
but because they throw a good deal OF
light on the position occupied by the
holders of Western warrants in general.
our correspondent writes as follows: :.
You viii understand that there are
two kinds of warrants issued by the city,
those payable out OF the city funds, which
are replenished by general taxation. and
those drawn uron street improvement
funds, which are provided for BY assess
meats upon property comprised within
special Improvement districts. The city
OF Seattle has but a very small number
OF warrants outstanding for which the
city Is primarily responsible. In 1891 the
city Was bonded In the sum of $780, 100 for
the purpose OF redeernisig outstanding
warrants, and in 1898 the city issued two
series of funding bonds. one Cor sis5 oto
and one for sf95. 900. leaving scarcely So,
coo outstanding. and this will undoubtedly
be funded as soon as constitutional pro-
visions will permit. This apparently large
debt was mainly incurred In rebuilding
with lumber the great extent OF street
far as creditors are concerned, however.
they are well protected by per cent.
bonds whose validity Is unassailable.
The only warrants as TO which there
Is any question are those which were is
sued on street Improvement funds. Tn
fortunately. in the great rush OF improve
ments after the fire, and in consequence
of feverish speculation in real estate
some OF these districts were formed with
out due regard to the legal preliminaries.
and as a result questions have arisen as
TO the validity of the assessments inn
posed. The outstanding street grade war
rants of this city may be divided into
three classes: First, those which are
valid and will be paid of from collected
assessments on property benefited as
times improve. Second, those for which
the city has rendered itself liable yolun-
tarily In an equitable adjustment of ir-
regular assessments: and third, those
which were void In the beginning through
the carelessneSs or cupidity of contrac-
tors. AS 10 the first and second classes,
there need be no apprehension on the
part of holders: they viii be paid off as
rapidly as returning prosperity viii allow.
As TO the third class. the holders will
have either to bear the loss Of a bad bar
gain or enforce payment-H they can
through the courts. Even II the city Of
ficials were willing as matter of policy
TO pay these invalid street warrants. they
would hardly care TO assume the respon-
sibiitty of paying out of the general treas
ury money 10 take up warrants which the
courts had held TO be invalid.
zone effort has been made 10 compel
the city to assume liability for warnl1ts
on a street fund which had been declared
TO be invalid. but IL failed. In its de-
cision I'm that case (Soule VS.. city Of Sc
attle Wash.) the state supreme court
held that contractor who received war
rants of the city for such improvements.
or his assignee, vas not entitled TO have
them paid from the general or street
fund but Is limited TO payment from
snerSsl aszessments' This decision was
rendered. May 8. 1898, but since that time
no further effort has been made by war
rant holders to take advantage OF other
ruanifeStly available remedies An at
tempt was made by the city. however 10
impose a new assessment or reassCSs-
ment but IL failed to hold. and the su-
preme court has declared that also In
valid shall not attempt 10 make this
communication legal opinion upon the
proper course 10 follow under the cir
cumstances, but. In Justice 20 our courts.
may hazard the suggestion that they have
limited very broadly al way out Of the
difficulty, al least In some cases, without
seeming 10 be giving instructions 20
counsel.
The fair conclusion seems 10 me 10 he
that many OF the warrants VIII he duly
paid In the course OF time. but there are
many which VIII be a loss to the holders
unless they take steps 10 protect their In
tercsts The citizens have twice at the
polls dclared their determination IN ray
every dollar OF Indebtedness legally and
In honor due but they VIII hardly as
sumo an obligation recklessly incurred
by contractors upon which legal resF,cn-
sgbnfty rested 10 see that all steps neces-
ssrv TO legalfzs their contracts we're
taken
The present city council has taken NJ
the task OF strengthening out the irregn-
lar assessments and the feeling IS that
they viii an,~e rsvs,l -, good work "