The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1898-02-12

ting the Contract for the Structure
Gillette HerzOg 60. Own the Bridges.
Judge Beatty has decided the case Of
9 Gillette Herzog Manufacturing
bmpany VS.. Canyon County in favor
the county. 1t will be remembered
! is case grows out of building of
Ridges for the county at Caldwell
BID Parma. The warrants issued for
g work were held to have been inval-
ated by decision of the supreme
burt in the case brought to test the
Rlidity of the proposed issue of fund
g bonds. A special election was then
llled to validate these and the rabbit
lr bounty warrants. The vote was in
lvOr of the latter but adverse to valiC-
ling the bridge warrants. Then this
bit was brought in the federal court
} recover the value of the bridges.
In his opinion Judge Beatty says:
This action is against Canyon
'Ounty upon contract entered into
ept. 5, 1894, by its board of commits
oners with plaintiff for the building
{ two bridges at the contract price of
bout $4,000. By written stipulation
i the parties, trial by jury having
zen waived, the same has been heard
y the court.
The defense to the action is that the
Dntract is void because the board of
Dmmissioners did not comply with
be statute of the state governing such
transactions, and that it was in viola
ION of section 8, article 8, of the con-
titution, which Is as follows:
mo county, city, town, township,
oard of commissioners or school dis
pct or other subdivision of the state
ball incur any Indebtedness or liabil-
~ in any manner or for any purpose,
Iceeding in that year the income and
eVenue provided for it for such year,
'ithout the assent of two thirds Of the
ualified electors thereof voting at any
lection to be held for that purpose;
or unless, before at the time of incur
ing such Indebtedness, provision shall
eimade for the collection of an annual
PIX sufficient to pay the interest on
hch Indebtedness as it falls due, and
$50 to constitute sinking fund for
be payment of the principal thereof
'ithin 20 years from the time of con-
Faeting the same. Any indebtedness
liability incurred contrary to this
revision shall be void; provided, that
nls section shall not be construed to
pply to the ordinary and necessary
Expenses authorized by the general
wv of the state
l. Upon this provision the argu-
bent of plaintiffs counsel and, as
Illustrated by their figures, seems to be
pat it is not violated if at the time of
taking the contract the amount there
, contracted, and the expenditure al
eady made during that year, do not
Sceed the total revenue levied for
ugh year. This is not the effect given
this provision by the state supreme
ourt, and such a construction would
molly eliminate from it its protecting
esign and permit county commission
rs to enter into the most reckless con-
'acts. What thus might be done is 80
Vldent that illustrative examples are
OF needed, AS has been held and as
clearly so, its object is to put the
lunicipal organizations therein named
pom a cash basis. This happy con-
animation would never occur in this
ountry, the experience of the past
eng any guide. if the plaintiffs views
revail.
The object of this provision is not
OScured by any doubt-after deduct.
lg from the revenue to be collected
1r the year, all expenses already paid
nd all other known debts or liabili-
les, including ordinary and necessary
Epenses yet to be paid during that
ear, the balance measures the limit
thin which other debts may be con-
acted. Such is the view of the su-
RENE court of the state in Bannock
70nty vs Bunting, 81 Pac. 279-ap-
'oYed in subsequent decisions-as