Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1896-03-06
sUMMARY-FEBRUARY
OUR COUNTY BONDS.
The Money will not be paid until the Legality
Of the Issue has been Apuroved by
the State Supreme Court.

of the Issue has been Apuroved by
the State Supreme Court.
We append herewith letter from Theis &
Barroll, purchasers OF the Idaho county bonds,
which speaks for itself. Mr.. Talkington very
properly refuses TO surrender their certified
check as all their demands have been fully
complied with The bonds will probably be
taken as soon as the Supreme Court of the
state passes upon the points involved in the
Spokane, WASH, Feb 81, 1885,
A. W. TALKINaroN, ESQ.,, Co. Auditor,
Mt. Idaho, Idaho,
DEAR SIR:-Our attorney has just completed
his Investigation of the legality of your pro-
posed issue OF $74 10000 bonds. 1t seems that
there has been, heretofore a considerable
legality of issues of bonds OF counties IN ldaho.
In 1894 a firm purchased an issue OF bannock i
county bonds, and their attorney required that
certain constitutional questions be taken to the
Supreme Court for adjudication This was the
case Of Bannock County ys. Bunting. me
have vote of the people before bonds could be
issued, and held that in this manner bonds
might be issued to drId wsr.anss asssea
The result is, thai in October OF last year
Chicago house submitted to Mr.. John Z.
Matthias a prominent bond attorney, an issue
of $50 600 Canyon county bonds, and by reason
of the doubt existing as 10 certain eonsutu.
tional questions, particularly the Purp1se OF
that a decision of the Supreme Court would be
necessary before these questions could be de-
termined. Among other things given in his
opinion given at that time, he says:
"Even where the excat purpose Of issue Is
known 1t still remains question for the courts
to determine whether they were issued for
ordinary and necessary expenses, because the
Supreme Court in the Bannock county case
simply held that this provision dia h no. ioage &c
determine what ordinary and necessary ex-
penses were, but left such determination either
to the legislature or to the courts. an OF the
opinion that there is enough disclosed in the
| record to compel me to disaprove OF their le-
| gality without decision of the Supreme Court
| of Idaho, and because OF the Importance Of the
| constitutional questions involved would recon.
mend that test case he made up and carried
| to the Supreme Court"
| About this same time the Bannock county
bonds having in the meantime been submitted
TO vote of the people,, were offered Tor sale
purchased subject to legal examination by
| j.. II. Rollins 4 Sons, bankers, of Boston. They
have had the legality of these bonds before
their storney Judge eaia%ei % tha, :" he New s aosk
rived at practically the same conclusion as Mr.
Matthias, to-wit: that while the Jaw itself he,
remains two constitutional questions, viz
first, what warrants may be funde.
| within the meaning of the constitution, and
second. what is the meaning OF that constitu
tional provision which provides, that before o
| at the time Of issuing the bonds tax shall b'
| levied to pay the bonds and interest thereon
1t is the opinion OF our attorney that thes,
bonds will be held to be strictly legal, and will
your proceedings he has no fault to find, but h'
|
order that no doubt should exist as to the con
stitutonality OF the act and the several feat
ures OF it which we have mentioned above
Supreme Court, and advises us to not take thes
or any other bonds of similar nature until thes
questions have been settled. We have me
with the same difficulty in the KOotena
county case, and, as stated, the other purchas
ers Of similar bonds have come squarely N
against the same question, with the result tina
neither the Bannock county nor the Canyo
county issues to be taken by the purchas
ers until these questions are adjudicated in tn
courts.
We learn by correspondence that an arrange
ment has been made between the purchasers G
| the Bannock and Canyon county issues where
by a test suit is to be made up and taken at tn
earliest possible day TO the supreme Court
which all of these questions are to be CAREFUL
adjudicated. In view of this case, which wi
determine all the points that are in doubt i
respect TO your issue, it will not be necessar
recommend that you simply wait until tha
case has been determined. At that time tn
question of legality will be fully determine
and the sale of your bonds can be complete
without any further delays.
In the meantime we do not wish to stand l
the way Of your selling these bonds to an
other purchasers who might be less careful tina
we in respect to these legal questions, and "
hereby, edyise you that we release you irol
any obligations under the contract by whic
we purchased the bonds, and will thank you
return our certified check.
If you do not see fit to attempt to put til
the court being handed down, we will at tn,
time take the matter up with you again, and
will give us pleasure TO negotiate with yO
with view to renewing our purchase.
think the matter will all be settled by June
July at the latest. There is no trouble abo,
finding market for the bonds II their legalii
could be passed upon, and while our attorne
advises that he does not think there Is u
slightest doubt about what the court will hol
in the matter, yet you are aware that al
/. questions that could possibly arise will have
| be fully determined before we or any of o,
| clients would put up this sum OF money. I'll
| question of legality is the most important fea
ure in bond issue, and 1t will be the best 4
your county do nothing until the uncertainti
are entirely cleared away. We have before
various decisions and opinions which lead I
to these conclusions, but as we have stated Il
gist of the matter plainly, we have no dou
that you will by reference to the constitute
and the Bannock county decision, apprecia
fully the defects, or rather the uncertainties
which we refer. Thanking you for past court
sizes, We remain,
Yours very truly,
p. s. BY reference to Section of Article vi
of the Constitution, you Will see a clause tn
provision shall be made for the collection
an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest
such indebtedness as IT falls due, and also
constitute a sinking fund, ETC." We are adv
cd by our attorneys here, and have also got Il
opinion on this point from Messrs. Hornblows
Byrne x Taylor, the prominent New York irI
TO the effect that under this provision II is abs
lutely necessary that the tax must be actual
delivery of the bonds The resolution that
sent them therefore would have to be pass
. just II was originally drawn and not
changed by yourself, to-wit: II would have
read "that there Is hereby levied tax, etc.,
to be collected from year to year" They .
wise us that under the constitution the bon
would be void, less such levy was actual
made as above stated.