Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-04-01
FUNDING COUNTY DEBTS.
New Bonds May lie Issued Only ON
One Class Of Indebtedness
Warrants.

The solicitor general has rendered the
following opinions:
Territory of New Mexico,
Office of Solicitor General,
Santa Fe, N. NJ, March 30, 1896.
Hon John D. Franklin, District Attorney,
Eddy, New Mexico:
Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your let
ter dated March 16, requesting my Off
cial opinion as to whether the law OF
1895, entitled Gan act to authorize the
funding of outstanding county indebted
ness and for other purposes" and consti-
tuting chapter is of the session laws Of
that year, authorizes the funding of APP
proved accounts as we'll as warrants. Re-
plying beg to say that am of the opin-
ion, after a careful examination Of the
act, that it does not. Warrants are, it is to be
observed, much higher form of indebt-
edness than approved accounts; the for
mer are negotiable and constitute direct
charge upon the county treasury, while
the latter are subject to reconsideration
and modification at the option of the
county comm issioners. 1t is very owl
dent that the legislature intended to REQ
the term "warrant" is used repeatedly
throughout the act, while no other form
of Indebtedness is anywhere mentioned.
The expression of the one is in this case
certainly the exclusion of all others. Had
the legislature intended to include out
standing county Indebtedness of every
character, it Is difficult to understand
why, IN section one Of the act in question,
it limits the outstanding indebtedness
fundable to such as is 'evidenced by the
warrants of said counties duly issued or
which may be issued up to the first day
of July, A. d. 1896"
1t may be suggested, however, in OPP
position to the views herein expressed
that there could be no outstanding war
| rants duly issued subsequent to the pass
age of the act as therein provided for, by
reason of the fact that the act of 1889
makes it unlawful for county auth orities
to issue warrants unless there be money
in the treasury to meet them. 1t may be
further urged that the act if given the ef-
feet herein contended for would apply
only to warrants issued prior to the act
of 1889. While it must be admitted that
the act in question is subject to these
criticisms and as such falls far short Of
its purposes, as the same were generally
understood at the time of its enactment,
still the fact that adherence to its plain
language will render an act almost useless,
and even absurd, will not afford any JUS
LITIGATION for disregarding its plain letter
(23 A. & e. Eccy., of Law page 29S, and
cases cited.) Where the language of an act
is unambiguous there is no need for con
-truction. The lpse dixit Of the statute lie
sufficient. To do otherwise than to fol
low it's provisions ia for the courts to
abandon their judicial character and to
assume legislative functions. 1t is fur
Their to be suggested that the matter OF
issuing bonds should be entered into only
upon clear legal authority. A bond
bearing the pledge of the county's honor
and going into the hands of bona tide
purchasers for value, should, like C@sar's
wife, be above suspicion. can not be-
Iieve that bonds issued in exchange fol
approved accounts" would comply with
there requisites; and being Of this con
viotion am constrained to advise you
that the county of Eddy would not be
justified in issuing bonds in exchange
for any class of indebtedness other thar
warrants.
Very respectfully yours,
JNo. P. VICTORY,
Solicitor General of New Mexico.