The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1897-07-10
Supreme Court Decision Indicates In
validity.
BRIDGE AND RABBIT WARRANTS.
Nearly $4,000 of Bridge Warrants
and $500 Jack Rabbit Warrants
EfTected-UOurt Does Not Specifically
Decide Question Of Legality.

In the case Of W. g. Dunbar VS. the
board of county commissioners of Can
yon county the supreme court has
rendered a decision reversing the
lower court and remanding the case
for further proceedings.
This is case growing out of pro-
posed issue of bonds by Canyon county
to the amount of $46,445. 20 for fund
ing warrents issued during 1894 and
1895. The bonds were sold to Roberts
Bros. of Spokane and this suit was
brought TO determine their validity. A
demurrer was presented by District
Attorney Hays for the commissioners
setting up that the complaint did not
set forth facts constituting cause of
action. The demurrer was sustained,
and from this judgment the appeal
was taken.
The question involved is the litiga-
ton is one that has been before the
court in other cases-that of the right
of the commissioners to issue warrants
in excess of the revenues. Among the
warrants proposed to be funded were
a number aggregating $14,794 for
bridges at Caldwell and Parma and
Others issued for rabbit scalps to the
amount of $3198.57. AS this indebted
ness had been created without having
been authorized by the people at an
election, and as the expenditure was
held not to be ordinary and necessary,
it was claimed that the warrants were
void.
The supreme court does not directly
pass on the validity of the warrents,
but it finds that the complaint did set
forth facts constituting a cause of &C
ton and that the demurrer should
have been overruled. "The demurrer"
the opinion says, CONFESS the fact
that the commissioners of Canyon
county failed to make provision for
paying the principle and interest of
the alleged indebtedness, as required
by the constitution. For this reason,
if for no other, the demurrer should
have been overruled."
The dictum of the opinion indicates
that the bridge and scalp warrants are
both invalid. On this feature of the
case the court says:
ut does not appear what the aggre-
gate warrants issued by the officers of
Canyon county for said two years are.
So far as the pleadings are concerned
we cannot tell how much revenue was
paid into the county treasury during
said Two years, how much was paid
out or how much was left In the treas
ury. But a reasonable inference from
the facts pleaded is that the expendi-
lures exceeded the revenue to the ex-
tent of the proposed bond issue, and if
this is not correct, but on the other
hand it be true that there remained a
sufficiency in the treasury to pay said
warrants then the authority to issue
said bonds does not exist, and this is
suance should be restrained. If on the
other hand, the expenditures for said
two years exceeded the revenue for
those years to the amount of the pro-
posed bond issue, then the authority to
issue said bonds cannot be recognized
unless the requirements of the consti-
tuition and laws have been complied
with in mourning the debts sought to
be refuned.
''In solving this question it is neces-
sary to determine whether the build
ing of bridge, and the payment of
bounties for rabbits scalps are ordinary
and necessary expenses of a county. 1t
will be seen that the two terms are
used coDjunctively, hence to come
within the constitutional proviso or
exception, expenditures made in ex-
cess of the revenues of any current
year, must not only be for ordinary
expenses, such as are usual to the
| maintenance Of tho oOuDtv 0nuarDDoaDt