The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1897-09-11

Commissioners of Canyon Coun-
ty. This was practically a case
to test the validity of those bridge
warrants, or rather the legal right
of the Commissioners to incur the
debt, in connection with the build
ing of the bridges, in the manner
in which they did. Now let us
see what the Supreme Court said
on the subject: Section 8, Ar
ticle 8, of the constitution is in
words as follows: No county
city, town, township, board OF
education or school district, or
other subdivision of the State,
shall incur any indebtedness, or
liability in any manner, or for
any purpose, exceeding in that
year, the income and revenue
provided for it in such year, with
olt the absent of two-thirds OF
the qualified electors thereof, vot-
ing at an election to be held for
the purpose, nor unlesss, before
or at the time of mourning such
indebtedness, provision shall be
made for the collection of an an
nual tax sufficient to pay the in
terest on such indebtedness as it
falls due, and also to constitute a
sinking fund for the payment of
the principal thereof, within
twenty years of the time of con-
tracing the same. Any indebted
ness or liability incurred contrary
to this provision shall be VOid;
provided that this section shall
not be construed to apply to the
ordinary and necessary expenses
authorized by the general laws
of the state" That is the con-
stitution. The Court says:
We conclude that the building of
bridge and tho payment of scalp boun-
ties are not ordinary but ertrGordi-
nary, expense, and, being such, can not
be created in excess of the revenue of
the fiscal year in which they may be in.
Cured without the assent of t1Oo- thirds
Of the electors Of the county 0oting at
an election duly called and held.
We are aware that bridges
are useful and important, and of great
convenience to the public. But the
authority of boards of county commits
siOners in creating debts is limited by
constitution ond statutes of the State.
and must be exercised within those
limits, and at least with a substantial
compliance of the mode prescribed by
such constitution and statutes. 1t is
not only the duty of ministerial officers,
but of judicial officers as well, to
support the constitution and laws
of the State, but all of such
officers are bound, under the SOL
emn obligations of the official oath, SO
to do. No officer can support the con-
stitution by ignoring and violating its
plain provision. The duty of saying
that the Commissioners of Canyon
County hG0e 0iOlGted the constitution,
e0hile a painful one, is nevertheless a
a duty aOhich con not and should not
be eOGOled. If boards of coun-
ty commissioners are permitted to VIC
late, disregard and set at naught one
plain provision of the constitution,
then they may violate any and all pro.
visions of that instrument and the peo-
pie who pay the taxes and bear the
burdens of the government are with
out protection and at the mercy and
Whims of county commissioners. 4
But where board of commissioners,
in violation of the constitution, incurs
a large debt in excess of the revenues
for the fiscal year in which they assume
to incur such debt, without submitting
the question Of mourning such debt to
the voters, and providing for payment
of the interest and principal thereof, as
provided by the plain provision of the
constitution and statutes of the state,
such board is not acting within its
jurisdiction; and the action of the