The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-03-07

Shall Be Incurred Without a
Vote of the Electors.
The supreme court yesterday handed
down an opinion in the county war
rants case appealed from Judge
Cherry's decision in the district court
John A Fritsch is the plaintiff and
the board of county commissioners the
defendant and appellant. Judge
Cherry held that the warrants are
valid but the opinion, which was
written by Chief Justice Zane and
concurred in by Justice Bartch and
/ District Judge Hiles, reverses that
judgment and practically holds that
the warrants in question, amounting
to about $4,000. are illegal by reason
of the legal limit of the county's in
debtedness being exceeded by thai
amount.
THE OPINION.
The full text of the opinion is as
follows:
Zane C. J.:
| In his petition in the court below the
plaintiff asked for a writ of mandamus
| commanding the defendants to recognize
and provide for the payment of 20 county
] warrants, issued upon liabilities incurred
in 1896: 1t was alleged that they Were
! duly signed by the county auditor and
| certified by him to be within the debt
| limit of that year; that they were duly
delivered TO him, and that he owned
/ them.
! The defendants filed an answer to the
! petition to which the plaintiff interposed a
! demurrer which the court sustained and
/ the defendants having elected to stand
/ on their answer, the court ordered the
/ writ as prayed. From this judgment the
! defendants appealed. and assigned the
| Judgment of the court granting the writ
and the order sustaining the demurrer
/ as error.
| Assuming the allegations of the petition
/ to be true. the county treasurer should
/ have paid the warrants upon presenta-
/ ton and demand, and upon a refusal he
/ should have been made a party defendant
| to a petition for writ of mandamus to
compel payment.
But the petition was not demurred to-
and both parties desire us to consider the
errors assigned Therefore we will pro-
] coed to consider and decide the questions
raised and discussed upon the demurrer
| to the answer for the reason that after
| reversal and amendments of pleadings
/ the same questions would arise upon trial
| The defendants rely upon the following
statement of the revenue of the county
and its liabilities for the year 1896, as a
| defense to the action:
STATEMENT OF REVENUE OF 1896.
| Cash from 1895 account .S 40 pa 81
/ Cash from licenses, fees fines
pauper account, poll tax rent,
and miscellaneous Items. 5154l 70
| Tax for year 1896. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 130O66 II
From the state, one-half salaries
of attorney, assessor and treas
urer 2.Ss7 so
in 1896. .;;.....-:.;.:.... 2s.2SO 81
treasury in 1896. 11,SSs u
Total revenue. .s265, $50 40
LIABILITIES.
Appropriations made during the
year 1886 1922, SIG 10
Appropriations. January 2. 1897.
! for salaries, etc, for liabilities
OF lSSb ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Is, 7S6 "a
Amount due jury and witness
fees, as per auditors books,
to December %, 1896. ............. 1890 IS
Interest due on county warrants
!, 1886. ...:.....:.,.,.: 2o.4ss 80
Claims due the state of Utah
audited By the auditor. 1850 IS
! appropriations from January l.
1875 to June B. 1896, for claims
previous TO January, 1885,. q, $50 %
Total liabilities. ...........S 500. o1O ~
Liabilities over revenue. ........S sc, Isl o.
The following items of possible revenue
| as shown by statement in answer, left
| out of above statement:
Amount due from former Treas
urer Leonard. presumably I'M
collected taxes .-...............S p, $50 so
Amount due from former Treas
urer Spencer, presumably for
IKE taxes. .....-.--..-...-..--.... 60,IOI o.
Total ........................... Sc 2ss 50
The following items of possible indebt-
edness, as shown by statement in an
swer, left out of first statement above:
School fund proportion of
amounts due from Leonard and
Interest on sg2. 522.S6. county ''''''
warrants. incurred in 1896. due
January l, 1897. 1854 05
Due on warrants issued in 1885, $500 90
Claims presented to board, but
not acted Observation-Disclosures. ,943 Sc
Total :.......,................s 1882 IS
Possible revenue over possible
liabilities Observation-Disclosures 1852 27
The question is presented for our con-
sideration and decision, do plaintiffs war
rants constitute a debt in excess of the
taxes of Salt Lake county for the year
( 1895. and would their payment be a viola
ton OF section 8. of article a. of the con-
Sttution of this state. as follows: mo
debt in excess of the taxes for the cur
rent year shall be created by any county
in this state; unless the propo-
sition to create such debt shall have been
submitted TO a vote of such qualified
electors as shall have paid property tax
therein in the year preceding such cleo
ton. and a majority of those voting there
on shall have voted in favor of mourning
such debit"
This section declares that no debt in ex-
cess of the taxes of the current year shall
be incurred without vote of the electors.
The intention to limit the expenditures to
the taxes appears to be clearly expressed
by its language We must infer that the
members of the convention who framed
the section, and the electors who adopted |
II, intended what its language gramatic- |
ally arranged. in its ordinary acceptation |
expressed For such an inference. in our
opinion, does not involve any incon- |
sistency, lack of sound judgment or alb |
surdity.
Plaintiffs counsel insist. however. that |
the liabilities which the revenue was suf- |
hcient to pay during the year did not. in