The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-02-24

IN The order of its registration"
These are substantially all of the stat
nteS bearing upon the subject of the DOW
er or the county court TO create an IN
debtedhess; and while nowhere they in
express terms authorize the county court
10 incur such Indebtedness they nowhere
expressly forbid ST and it would seem
IRON The nature of the duties imposed
upon the county court, The Knit of their
ne sections we have cited above, that
the power to create an Indebtedness
WITHIN certain limits is unquestionably
we thInk there is authority under these
statutes to create an Indebtedness.
What in the Limit
SO the next question and the more diff
heuit one, is, what is the limit of indebt-
Sec. 1s2, page 27e, First Vol Comp
Laws, in the fifth division. provides,
among other duties of the county clerk:
Ihat the county clerk must keep an
gendltures Of his county: also OF "a
debts payable to and by said county. At
the nrst session Of the court held in each
year the clerk shan submit to the . sag
amount received from each source dur
ing the fiscal year ending on the 91st day
OF December last preceding, the balance
II any, in the treasury at the close OF the
previous. fiscal year, the expenditures
curing the fiscal year just closed, speci-
lying separately the total amount paid 10
each and every disbursement the bal
ance, II any, on hand, together with
Statement of all the debts payable to and
by The said county,
brief, that the county court in each year
may e1peE1 its revenue collected in that
year, ana may incur an indebtedness IN
excess of the revenue equal to the reve-
nue. for two years Immediately preceding
ana that this process may be repeated
from year to year until the entire indebt-
s1as shquld eqIal the per cent; INIT i1
mated in The brief of counsel for the
plaintiff that the legislative powers OF the
territory could not be exercised to limit
per cent. fixed by the Act of Congress;
that otherwise their actions would be in
conflict with that act Of Congress.
We think this does not necessarily fol-
low. The Act of Congress is simply a
limitation upon the legislature OF the ter
ritory: is not a grant OF power TO the
legislature, much less 10 the county court.
1t forbfds the legislature to authorize a
greater Indebtedness than A per cent, and
being directly applicable TO the territory,
Of course forbidS the municipal corpora
tons in the territory from mourning for
any purpose an Indebtedness in excess Of
4 per cent. The question Is, what is the
limit that the territorial legislature has
liked? An examination of the statutes
we have cited including that in regard TO
the duty of the county clerk, together
with the provision requiring the county
court to publish a statement Of the in
debtedneSS Of the county at the end Of
Sec. 1S1 indicates pretty clearly what the
intention Of the legislature was as TO the
limit of Indebtedness. The language of
the first section fixing the limit is chat
no Indebtedness or liability shall be in
CURED in any manner or for any purpose
in any amount exceeding in any year the
total amount of it's income and revenue
Tor the two fiscal years Immediately pre-
cedlng. The other section, $50, is almost
IN the same language. The language is.
1.-THE court must not contract any debts
or liabilities except in pursuance of law.
Nor shall such Indebtedness or liability
in any manner or for any purpose exceed
in any fiscal year the income and revenue
or such county for the two fiscal years
Immediately preceding
Should Not Exceed TWO Years Rev
It will be observed that the provision Is
not That the amount of Indebtedness or
liabilities created in any fiscal year shall
not exceed the income for the two pre-
ceding years; but the entire liabilities
and nGebtedness for any purpose con-
tracted in any manner shall not exceed
that amount
Taken in connection with the provisions
Which require the financial condition of
the county TO be made up at the end OF
each fiscal year, the statement to be rem
dered at that time, our conclusion is that
the intention of the legislature was TO
issue warrants at any time for any pur-
pose or in any manner or to contract any
debts or liability beyond the revenues Of
the current fiscal year in excess OF the
revenue and income for the two years
Immediately preceding.
We agree with counsel for the plaintiff
that the allowance of claims against the
county equal TO the revenues for the cur
rent year, is not q creation or mourning
of any Indebtedness or liability. While
the taxes for the current year are not
collected until the end of the year, they
are undoubtedly after they are levied re-
gdrded as a legal certainty, and are to
be treated as If already collected, and
allowances may be made against such
taxes TO the extent of the levy.
The question may be presented as 20
the power of the county court to make
allowances prior to the time OF making
the tax levy for the current year even
TO pay the current expenses of the coun-
". We are not called upon to decide
that question in this case, although it
was somewhat argued before rs upon the
that at the time plaintiff presented his
claim TO the county. the total amount OF
outstanding warrants OF the county was
S427, 5o0.SSj that the total revenue iDclud-
ing poll taE of the county. for the years
1892 and 1893 was 1891, $50 Sc II is very clear
TO our mind that the school tax should
ounts IN n the paF5 limit OF Of me
debtedneSS. Nor DO we think it material
that a considerable portion OF the war
rants outstanding the Sist day of De
during the year 1894 was for work and
labor done and contracted for during the
year 1898. II we are right as to the limit
of Indebtedness, it is wholly irnrnaterial
when the Indebtedness accrued. When it
reaches the limit, the power to contract
further Indebtedness ceases.
In our opinion all warrants drawn up
on the county treasurer during the year
1894, at any time when the amount of
warrants outstanding exceeded 1857, $780,
vera absolutely void: and that tnasnuch
as that amount and a great deal more of
the plaintiff presented his claim for al
loWance, we have no authority to direct
the county court to issue warrant for
the sum-
Sec. 175. page .2s4 of the County Govern
ment Act, provides expressly that MEM
bers Of the county court shall be liable
in person for any violation OF the prOVi-
sions of the act In regard to allowances
Suggestion as to the Future.
A great deal of apprehension was ex-
pressed in the argument as to the con-
duct of the county government for the
future until The revenues for the year
1895 were available, It is not perhaps
necessary to the decision OF this case that
we should make any suggestion in regard
TO those future claims. EOWeVer, we are
OF the opinion that as fast as the county
court redeerns any outstanding warrants
tlat have been legally issued. they may
issue an equivalent amount OF warrants
and if the revenues for the years 1898 and
1891 exceed those OF the years 1892 and
1893, the difference might be allowed dur
ing the year 1885; but we are clearly of
the opinion that by no means of Juggling
with the figures and The financial state
ment of the county can the debt limit be
increased at any time in any year eX-
ceedtng the entire revenue for the two
years Immediately preceding the time
such debt is created
IL results from these views that the
application of the plaintiff in this case
must be denied and the proceeding dis
missed; and It is 50 ordered.
Merritt. c. j. Bartch. j. King. ].