Arizona weekly citizen., 1896-02-15
behalf of sucL

the present outstanding warrants, certi-
ficates and other evidences OF indebted
ness issued subsequent to December
31st 1890, for the necessary and correct
expenses of carrying on the territorial
government only, together with such
warrants as may be issued for sucL
purpose for the years ending December
31st 1894 and December 31st 1895, may
also be funded ard bonds issued for the
redemption thereof; and these after no
warrants, certificates or other evidences
of Indebtedness shall be allowed to is
sue or be legal where the same is in
excess of the limit presented by the
Harrison act"
Plaintiff contends that act No. % is
not the authorization of the contraction
of debt, nor the creation of debt, as
prohibited by the acts of congress, but
after giving this matter the most correct
consideration and after laborious re-
search and examination and with some
what of a feeling leaning towards
wish to uphold the action of the legis
lature because it appears by the act
that it was considered on two different
occasions by that body, and finally
passed by requisite majority to entitle
it to become a law nOtwitanding
the veto of the governor, yet am driven
to the conclusion from which it seems
to me there is no escape, that the act is
IN violation of the provisions of the
Harrison act and the amendment to the
funding bill as quoted above, aud is
therefore null and void. 1t seems to
me that it was the clear intention of
congress to call halt in the unsys-
tematic and lavish expenditure of
money by the territories and the po-
lItical and municipal corporations
within them, which ragged at the time
the Harrison act became law as the
shows. Can any restrictive or prohib-
tory language be stronger or palmer
than that used in those acts and with
The evident intention of congress in
passing them can it be Inferred that
hing might be done indirectly, the d.
rect doing of which was and is SO
positively prohibited?
But the plaintiff claims that if the
money sufficient to pay his demand
vas il the treasury at the time he pre-
'ented it to the auditor, then there was
40 debt contracted by act No. %, and
The amount of his demand should have
been paid. But the stipulation recites
hat the territorial treasurer had made
call for outstanding warrants suffi
,ient in amount to nearly exhaust the
cash in the treasury previous to the
passage even of act %, and that there
were prior to the presentation, or even
Existence of plaintiffs claim, unpaid
outstanding warrants amounting 10 the
aggregate to more than the sum OF
money IN the general fund in the
treasury.
AS the law of the territory provides
hat warrants shall be paid in the order
IN which they were drawn, could there
be any fund in the treasury out of
which plaintiffs claim could be paid
under this state of facts? Was not all
the money in the treasury virtually ap-
propriated?
But plaintiff contends that the war
rants claiming prior payment to his
demand were illegal and that the pay
ment of them was unauthorized, and
that if they were legal no payment of
them could be made out of the funds
in the treasury, but they could only be
funded as provided by the amendment
Of August 3, 1894, to the funding act.
Why they were illegal, it does not ap-
pear from the record before me. 1t is
true the amendment of August 3, 1894,
provides that the then outstanding
warrants, certificates and other evil
dences of indebtedness issued subse-
quen. TO December 81, 1890, for the
necessary and current expenses OF
carrying on the territorial government
only, together with such warrants as
may be issued for such purposes for
the years ending December 81, 1894,
and December 81, 1895, may also be
funded and bonds issued for the re-
demption thereof. But 1 do not con-
strue this as mandate that they shall
be funded instead of being paid by the
treasurer out of any money he may
There being no evidence that the
warrants called in by the treasurer or
those outstanding unpaid ones prior to
plaintiffs claim as shown in the stipu-
lation were illegal, it must be presumed
that the officer issuing them and the
officer (treasurer) calling them in for
payment complied with the law and
that they were therefore legal and such
that the treasurer might lawfully pay.
Constitutional prohibitions against
the creation of debts and obligations
by states, political and municipal cor
porations, are mandatory and leave no
discretion to the courts or other depart
ments of the government in constituting
their plain provisions.
As said by the supreme court of the
United States in the City of Litchfield
VS.. Ballon ia, United States 100,
treating of this subject:
"There stands the existing indebted
ness to a given amount in relation to
the sources of payment as an impossible
obstacle to the creation of any further
debt in any manner or for any purpose
whatever. If this prohibition is worth
anything it Is as effectual against the
implied as the express promise, and is
as binding in a court of chancerv as a
court of law.
The Judgment will be entered for the
defendant. BETHUNE,
Judge.