Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1897-07-16

lures dOr SalU TWO years exceeded
the revenue for those years to the
amount of the proposed bond issue,
then the authority to issue said
bonds cannot be recognized unless
the requirements Of the constitu.
tion and laws have been complied
with in mourning the debts sought
TO be refunded.
"In solving this question it is
necessary to determine whether
the building Of a bridge, and the
payment Of bounties for rabbit
scalps are ordinary and necessary
expenses of II county. 1t will be
seen that the two terms are us ID
conjunctively, hence to come with
in the constitutional proviso or cx-
ceptiOn, expenditures made in tx.
cess of the revenues Of any current
year, must not only be for ordinary
expenses, such as are usual to the
maintenance of a county govern
ment the conduct of its necessary
business and the protection Of its
property, but there must exist a
necessity for making the expendi-
ture al or during such year.
"What has been said with ref
erence to building court house
applies to the building of a bridge
or other public improvement. with
in the letter and spirit OF the con-
stitutiOn and statutes. We CON
cludc that the building of bridge
and the payment of scalp bounties
are not ordinary but extraordinary
expenses, and being such, cannot
be created in excess Of the reven-
nes for the fiscal year in which in.
CURED without the assent of two
thirds of the electors of the county
voting at an election duly called
and held.
X x X X X
lin passing upon the question
before us, we do not desire to be
understood as passing ON the m,
terial facts in the case, or as de-
Gliding the validity or invalidity of
the warrants in question.
X !: 4: X *
SIN such cases this court will
not say that the proposed issue of
bonds is legal unless it affirmative
ly appears by the record that all Of
the provisions Of FOUR constitution
and statutes in force relating to
the subject matter, have been COM
piled with.
at was admitted by the attor-
ney general in argument that the
record in the case did not show all
Of the facts which should appear
and he contended that there was
not enough in the record to justify
this court in passing on the valid
ity or invalidity of the proposed
issue Of bonds.
"The decision in Morgan vs..
Board Of county commissioners,
decided by this court April 6, 1895,
80 Fac. lllS, is somewhat in con-
flict with the views herein express
ed, and we think should, to some
extent, be modified. The remedy
to correct errors and Irregularities
in the action of the Board of COM
missioners acting in a matter over
which such Board has jurisdiction
is solely by appeal. But where Il
Board of commissioners, in viola,
ton of the constitution incurrs .
large debt in excess Of the reven
ucs for the fiscal year in which
they as .umc to incur such debt,
without submitting the question OF
mourning sach debt 10 the voters
and providing for payment of III,
interest and principal thereof ii
provided by the pain provision oi
the constitution and statutes OF til.
state, such Board is not acting
within its jurisdiction, and the ac
ton of the Board in making such
an order is void, and may be at.
tackled directly, indirectly or col
literally, at any time or place.
To hold otherwise would give the
Boards of commissioners power to
do indirectly what the constitution
forbids.