The Weiser signal. [volume] (Weiser, Idaho) 1890-1904, 1895-10-31
COUNTY WARRANTS.

occurs to me that you have not put
the case strong enough in favor Of
the October warrants.
There is no doubt in my mind that
section Is, Art VII of the constitu-
ton and section 1411 of the statutes,
both of which are quoted in your ar
ticle, together fix September 9th,
1895, as the date on which the cash
system contemplated by the constitu
ton goes into operation; that is, that
warrants issued before that date are
to be paid out of the redemption
fund provided under said section AL,
and that all warrants issued after
Sept 9th are to be paid out of the
"current expense fund" provided by
section 17l2.
The purpose of the section of the
constitution is undoubtedly to enable
the counties to make their purchases
at cash prices, by paying their war
rants as soon as issued. To com
mence doing this at any particular
date, without at the same time max
ing provision for the payment of
warrants then outstanding would man
ifestly be unjust. Hence the consti-
tuition required the legislature to
make provision for especial levy"
for redemption fund" to pay the
outstanding warrants
Now it is evident that this provi-
sion Of the constitution was not self
operative and could not possibly be
in effect until the revenue law of
March 8, 1895, was passed, which
was the first law making any provi-
sion for counties in debt to do bust
ness on "a cash basis or to raise a
redemption fund to pay outstanding
warrants. After the law was passed
a special levy for this redemption
fund could not be made until the
assessment was completed and the
boards of equalization had acted.
The legislature, in section AL, fixed
''the second Monday in September,
annually, the date when the other
levies are made, as the date for MAX
ing this special levy, and the first levy
for a redemption fund for our county
was accordingly made on the 9th day
of September, 1895. Now the stat
ute does not definitely fix the date of
the warrants to be paid from this re-
demption fund. So far as the statute
goes, it might be argued that the
warrants to be paid from such fund
were those outstanding at the begin
ming of the fiscal year, 1895; or
those outstanding on March 8, 1895
when the new revenue law went into
effect, or those outstanding on the
9th of September, when, under the
law, the commissioners had to deter
mine the amount of outstanding war
rants to guide them in making the
levy. But the constitution itself, in
section Is, Art. VII, as quoted by
you, settles this question by using
these words: "And after the levy of
such special tax, all warrants issued
before such levy shall be paid exclus-
lively out Of said redemption fund
In other words, all warrants issued
before September 9th, 1895, must be
paid out of the redemption fund,
which leaves all of the incoming cur
rent expense fund to meet warrants
issued after that date.
If the statute had attempted to fix
any other date than that of this levy
for this cash system to go into oper-
alton, it would, to that extent, have
been VOID, because in conflict with
the constitution
1t seems to me there cannot be any
DOUBT or the correctness OF this con-
clusion and that, as the July warrants
must be paid out of the redemption
fund, there is no legal reason why
they should be paid out of their turn,
or before warrants that have been
issued at various dates since October.
1898, while the October, 1895, war
rants are to be paid at once, or as
soon as there is cash enough in the
current expense fund to meet them.
But the idea seems to be quite
prevalent that all of the 1895 war
rants, or, at any rate, those after the
January warrants which were for ex-
penses incurred in the fiscsl year of
1894, are to be paid out of the new
current expense fund. Those who
hold this view seem not to have no.