The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-14
LIMIT TO BOND ISSUE
CONTRARY DECISIONS BY JUDGE
e'InErr AND WY kErcHAn.
Former folding School and Municl-
pal Corporations Separate and
Latter Dissenting.

va ~ PdiStdSC vi tile IsiCh-
etts property for the schools of this city.
the question was seriously mooted whether
the bonds issued by the School Board for
It's purchase were not void, because pro-
hIbised by the constitutional limitation con-
corning municipal indebtedness. The Con-
stitution provides that a municipal corpora
ton cannot go in debt to exceed 2 per cent.
OF its taxable property assessed at the last
previous assessment for taxation. AS is
well known, the city Of Indianapolis has
within its boundaries two distinct corpora
tons, a corporation for the civil affairs
and another for its school oficers-under
different systems of government, and each
having power to create an indebtedness in
dependently of the other. The present in
debtedness of the city, taking both the
school and civil Indebtedness together, ex-
ceeds 2 per cent. of the valuation of prop
erty for taxation, but is less than 4 per cent.
On this subject two high authorities in
the State nave advanced contradictory
opinions. Attorney-general Ketcham rem
dered an opinion a few days ago holding a
certain schoolhouse bond issue to be void
because 1T would make the total debt of the
school town and the municipal town exceed
the two-per-cent. limit. A 5000 school
house was to be built and bonds issued in
aymen The two corporations, taken as
one, lacked only SIG, 900 of the two-per-cent.
nona unit, and the Announcements held
that the issue would be void. On the other
hand, Judge Giuett Of the porter c,rar;t
Court ~ a. nass " - ror'er circui.
Hammond against the school township of
North. has recently decided the two cor
poratlons must be considered as
separate and entirely independent
OF each other. In passing on
TINS particular question he used the follow
ing language which is of interest to the
.aapayers OF this city. holding, in effect.
aa. 10y Souio 30 az ueDS Per
cent. and the school city another 2 per
inaebtednsss - : pos.o'e 20 pne up an
na~sSN , yer CENT against all the
1T has also been oh,actaa = -. ,,ou,
of the law that I have sI,rpestad th ,t tthfMs
would be a means by which the civ MIGHT
cional limit, and IL ia said aithonph - is
not in the record. that in the case Of the
city of Hammond its indebtedness already
to add any greater indebtedness to IL would
be to simply increase the burden which
Their imposition of. 1 do not agree with
! counsel that the Indebtedness Of a school
debtedness of a school CORPORATION cover
ing the same territory. The constitutional
| provision referred to. SO far as it relates
to the question in hand. reads as follows:
"No political or municipal corporation
In this State shall ever become indebted.
in any manner or for any purpose, to an
amount. in the aggregate. exceeding 3 per
centum on the value OF the taxable prop
| erty within such corporation, to be- ascer-
and county taxes previous to the mourning
| OF such Indebtedness; and all bonds or obi
Nv s,ich CORPORATION shall be void,SSection
l. Article la
."This Amendment was adonted March IA
1881 Tbere had been mon the statute hooks
Of this state for MANY years prior thereto
the provision that civil and school corpora
their indenendence had heen frrfner evfah-
ijshed nv 3 long line Of decisions holding
| thai ths civil cornoration was MT liable
| for the ohlira tions OF the school CORPORA.
t;ors AMI Sica werSa Tn VIEW ~ tpase
facts it must be said that the people. in
quoted. did not intend to prohfbit a school
from incurring debts where the municipal
ampInt or the constitutional limit. IF such
a ruling as plaintiffs counsel suggest were
TO Goaat IN y in woIia NAYS o y : pc co nsri 4 for cJ The
purnose Of ascertsining whether IL had
exceeded its CONSTITUTIONS limit of indebt-
connfy and ali of the indebtedness Of each
incorporated town. citv and fSwnshin and
school o eorp :, ati;, IL therein here n would Souira have - to
such Is tha Law ~ TThara is 3 ff,rthar raason
why the construction should not be given
and that is that the two corpnrations the
municipal and the school corporation. are
co ornn nn e is a. ne 70 n 'n whieS tha ;nbeh;yy
FANS Of the Territory volmntarilv take nnon
themselves Corporate existence for the pur-
nnsn - yocaf aIf,rovarnmant Wits : scb"o,
cornoration ;s . o'asi- coroora f;on organl
igad ,nder tba Law Of fhe state for the
neu g nrng on+ noa re tha e,nn
ions Of the American state. viz. the ed
ucafion of it's children, and in the govern
,m zen o, M iand1c RI tm M nee sscb cba n 3 q 3 y
snas az ether IN the change Of fhe Trustee
or in the blending Of the corporation into
other corporations. or in the making of
concsrIins ~ So1lu u Snnna
4 Ian % Scn sTIan VIZ Ths school shi1 ToWn of
Mamn ia Ind "a A y
May, I1 Ill., ooSJ ah,. r,,1,nr,, u,h;o,
II wouid De q Tema.KaDl rniins m ~ :
IL snouid De nn ndid hu Hd innrovidence or nther.
wise. incurred an Indebtedness to the full
thst The Solemn trust vested in the Legisla-