Omaha daily bee., 1899-10-19
CITY ATTORNEY SUSTAINED
Old Warrants Take Precedence Of Those
Issued for Current Expenses.
CITY NOT AFFECTED BY LAW OF 1886
is Now Given Full Author
ity to Disburse Funds that Have
Been Tied Up since
April, 1898.

City Attorney wadsworth received yes
terday morning certified copy of the ruling
of the supreme court In the city warrant
case Of Phillips against Reed. The opinion
is lengthy document and opens with a
statement Of the facts in the case and quotes
In full the demurrer OF the defendant, upon
which the decision OF Judge Smith in the
lower court was based. Continuing, the
opinion is as follows:
While the petition alleges that at the be-
thereto the city city Of Council @ W sluffs Hs was D in
debted In excess of the constitutional limit.
does not appear that the warrants for
are postponed are invalid. AS we said in
Phillips against Reed supra. "1f the city
had on hand or in at the time
which to meet them without trenchng
the rights OF creditors for current expenses
although such funds may have been there
after applied to other purposes"
The constitutionality Of the Indebtedness
represented by the warrants which defend
| and seeks to allow precedence over those of
plaintiff is not an issue In this case, and we
sideration to the statement of the finances
| OF said city for many years past. which
for n appellant ,Sgp have seen fit to in
ter was contained in the petition and the
| case. as already said, comes to US upon de-
| We held in the former case between these
parties, that under section l, chapter iv,
bly,, cities We're required to first apply the
current income of each year TO the pay
ment Of the expenses of that year, and that
same acts, which required city warrants to
| be paid in the order of their presentation,
applied only to the warrants of a given
year.
But 1t is now urged on the part of appel
lee that section l, chapter iv, Acts of the
| VNvt,nr ,ft- 0tNI I1
apply to the city of Council Bluffs. That
section as as originally enacted was as fol,
for ali fass ss dsr
ent expenditures of the city government
for each fiscal year at or before the begin
the city council or any officer, agent or en-
ploye of the city to issue any warrant. en-
money in excess Of the amount thus ap-
propriated for which such appropriation
shall be made, and any such city shall not
excess OF its annually legally authorized
revenue, but nothing herein shall prevent
for RI the eye year t for which such I app appropriation
was made: or from bonding or refundng
of the first class, organized since 1881" The
petition. as we have It, alleges that the
class, organized since 1891. The arguments
| of both parties indicate that this date as it
IN the sba5d bet Is
question was passed in the year 1856. we
shall treat the case as it is argued and con-
@ @sider the ne cit city as being clearly within the
If, then this section. which provides that
penses from current revenues. did not APP
ply to Council Bluffs, section q chapter
iii, laws of the Twenty-second General AS
of warrants in the order Of their presenta-
tion, had full effect and applied to all war;
rants issued by the city prior to the adop-
ha fn
tion !, chapter iv, was dropped. The effect
Of the requirement that warrants shall be
70 create a contract for precedence with
impaired by subsequent legislation.
~ is suggested, but not argued, by ap-
pclant that the proviso is invalid we set
out .t,vL all that is said on the subject
was at the time of the passage of charter
organzed a! since 1884, and submit to this
therein is good If IT was, as is claimed
for IT put in there-only that Council Bluffs
should be relieved from the liabilities and
restrictions therein ontained. Should this
court conclude that this proviso is good
and that that it included Council Bluffs and is
had at the time of the passage of chapter
/. o, ~ OF twenty-second G. A.. and each and
every s roi,e year since as complete restriction
as sectlon thereof would impose without
the proviso."
If this provision is void it must be upon
cuis tiluliondi GROUNDS, and We not in
clined. nor would it be proper for us to &c
out OF our way In search for such reasor
Tor setting aside the legislative will The
not argued applies with double force tc
cpnStltHtioaai GrnSer1l o,a questions We may very
properly ADD here that no sufficient reasor
occurs TO us FOR declaring this proyiso in.
valid '"o III
Something is claimed by appellant for tn,
fact, as asserted that section of chapte,
iv is applicable to defendant city This in
depreciation is not well founded Section
| tion l. ~ ''e
lnasmuch as 1t was defendants duty tc
apply the funds In his hands to the pay
entation and as the amount of such war
rants outstanding and properly indorset
exceeded the amount of the moneys OF
hand we are of the opinion that the cour
below made a proper disposition of thi,
case and Its judgment is therefore affirmed