The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-03-09

OLYMPIA, March G-SpeciaL-rn re-
Spouse 20 al inquiry Attorney General
Winston has rendered al opinion bearing
or the legality OF a specia. tax levied for
interest payments on bonds. II addition 20
the tax authorized for general county pGr-
poses The case in point is Jefferson coun-
-, but the opinion will De read with great
interest az over the state. as other coua-
ties are situated similarly 10 Jefferson.
The opinion, which IS & document Of ex-
IRENE Importance. IS as follows:
Mr.. Thomas II. Fisher. Prosecuting
Attorney. Port Townsend. W&sh--pear
ar: In reply 10 your question whether
Jefferson county can levy q special tax for
the payment OF the Interest on its bonds
issued under the act Of 1ssQ in addition 20
the s-mil tax authorized for general
county purposes, nave the honor 10 say
that | have given this question my best
consideration, dsyolng 20 * good deal
o. time, on account Of it's Vita import
aace. Whether the commissioners can
levy such a tax depends snUrely upon the
construction placed upon section o. the
act OF 1850 which provides that the coup
ons herein before mentioned for the pay
ment OF interest on said bonds shall be
considered for ali purposes as warrants
draw on the general fund OF the county
issuing bonds under the provisions OF this
act
IN Loan Association VS. Topeka, %
Wallace. eSS, the court says:
W men ne o. the state 2E-
thor1xes county 20 contract debt by
bond, IL intends 10 authorize IL 20 levy
such taxes as are necessary to pay TIE
debt, unless there is something in the act
Itself or IN some general statute lTn-
tia ton upon tie power OF taxation, which
repels such an inference
TO the same effect are the decisions OF
the supreme court OF the United States IN
L. s. VS.. New Orleans IS L. s, ISL; Quin-
cy VS.. Jackson, lib L. s., So. Rails Coun-
~ Court VS.. L. g., los L. S, 80.
al am OF the opinion that there Is no
limitation IN the general statute upon the
power OF taxation which repess the infer
ence that the legislature intended 10 au-
thorize the county 10 levy such taxes as
are necessary 10 pay the aeh- and inter
est The limit OF mills imposed IN the
general statute clearly relates 20 debts
and expenses for ordinary county por-
poses and not TO bonded Indebtedness.
THE only question therefore IS whether
the words In section OF the act OF 1850
which declare that the coupons hereinoe-
est on said bonds shall be considered for
al purposes as warrants drawn upon the
general fund OF the county issuing the
roEds,' impose such iirnita ton. / am OF
the opinion that those words are not a
limitation OF the rights OF the boRdhole-
ers, but an exteTglon OF their rights, that
IL was the intention OF the legislature 70
confer upon the holders OF these bonds
the additional right. should they SO elect,
to treat the Interest coupons as general
fund warrants. Without this section the
OF a special fund raised for that purpose
by a special levy. With IL they can, a.
the option OF the holder. be considered as
general fund warrants.
WAS IL the intention OF thu legislature
20 compel these bondholders 30 surrender
one right for the other. or was IL the In
tentioa OF the legislature 10 give them an
additional right? Was 10 the intention of
the legislature TO compel them 10 give Up
q certainty for an uncertainty. for with
out this section they had the legsl right
TO compel the special leyyg To suppose
that me bon6hol6ers are compelled 70 ac-
cApt warrants on the general fund IN lieu
OF Interest coupons IS 20 suppose that they
took those bonds knowing that they could
be compelled 20 wait forever for their IL
ferest IL the running expenses Of tbs cour-
" took all the ordinary funds.
Clay Co. Va. McAlser. lis Z. 8 SIS.
Section OF the set OF 1880 provides for
= sinking fund 10 pay the principal OF the
bonds. II the tnteresl - permitted 10 go
unpaid by constituting section 70 be a
limitation upon the right OF The county
10 pay the interest, We VII nave this cor
6irion % affairs. that when the principal
is all paid OF. the unpaid accumulated n
tsrsst viii have amounted 20 more than
the principal. when CO not think Ii the
intention OF the act
Bat as I sad a. the beginning % this
oK1rlion. II IS purely a Ques ton OF the con
struction OF an act, and The construction
that / have placed upon Il may not De
the correct ore, but j think IL ought 10
De and IS Very truly yours.
PATRICK HENRY WINSTON.
Attorney General"