Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-10-15
TO
COURT HOUSE
PROPOSITION TO BE SUBMITTED
TO VOTERS OF COUNTY
= NEXT MONTH.
THE PROPOSED
NEW COUNTY JAIL.
Bonds Will Be Issued if Voters APP
prove-Cost Estimated at One
Hundred Thousand Dollars.

Hundred Thousand Dollars.
The voters Of Silver Bow county will
have something else on which to vote
besides candidates for office. The coun-
ty commissioners are figuring on build
ing a new county Jail, to cost between
$75,0 900 and $100, 900, but in order to do
it. bonds to the extent of the latter
amount viii nave to be issued. The is
suance of these bonds is a matter upon
which the electors alone will decide, for
the law says that when a greater SUM
than $4,000 is to be used for public inn
p1overnents in a county the voters must
decide whether or nett they desire the
proposed improvements. There is now
in the sinking Juno of this county $40,-
900, and the treasurer believes that $36, 900
more will be added to it before the ex-
piration of the year.. Bonds to the ex-
tent of $125, 900 are now outstanding, but
are redeemable next ear The COM
missioners are discussing the possibility
of using the money in the sinking fund
to liquidate a portion of the bonded in
debtedness of the count and then, if
the proposed bond issue for the new
Jail meets with the approval of the voters
on November 6, float $500 900 worth OF
new bonds, bearing interest not to ex-
coed ! per cent.
County Attorney Connolly today rem
dered the following opinion in the mat
ter:
Hon. William D. Clark, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners, City
Dear Sir: You desire an opinion upon
the following propositions: Your board, in
the performance Of it's legal functions,
-. 20 - ntEn n ~,@l~ ~
a rate of interest to be fixed by you, not
not to exceed that provided by law. This
issue Of bonds is, first, for the building
and equipment of a Jail, and, s~econdarily,
for the redemption Of the present bonds
outstanding against the county, at a
lower rate of interest. According to
your statement, the board expects to
nave $500 on hand in 1901 for the re-
demption Of the present amount of $685.
600 in bonds outstanding. The board is,
therefore,, DESTROYS, as l understand it, of
issuing bonds to the amount of $3.50, 900,
5000 Of which is for the purpose of pay
ing off and redeeming the remainder II
the issue Of $125 900, after applying the
n 5000 OF hand in 1901, and $1QO, 900 of the
proposed issue to apply for the purpose
of building and %equipping a Jail. You
desire to secure my opinion as to
whether you can submit the two propo-
sitions in one vote to the electors of Sill
yer Bow county.
Under section 424O of the Political code,
the board has authority to ISSUE, on the
credit of the county, coupon bonds to ar
amount sufficient to enable it to redeem
all legal outstanding bonds, warrants or
orders, not exceeding IN the aggregate,
including outstanding bonded indebted
ness, 5 per centum on the value of the
taxable property within the county, to
be ascertained by the last assessment for
the state n county taxes previous to
issuing such bonds.
Section 4196 provides that no county
must become indebted in any manner or
for any purpose to ar amount, including
existing Indebtedness, in the aggregate
exceeding 5 per cent of the value of the
taxable property therein, to be ascer-
tanned by the last assessment for state
and county taxes, and all bonds or obi
cations in excess of such amount given
by or on behalf of such county are void.
These and cognate sections OF our
present code nave been discussed and
decided BY our supreme court in Hotch-
kiss VS.. Marion, II Montana, 2l9. The
sections of the then law are practically
IiClhllSkii Will llOSe u TIE DIGSe l. SGts
lions of the code. In that case, tho su-
preme court held, as is provided by Sec
ton 4240 of our present code that The
board of county commissioners has au.
thority to issue %refunding bonds with
out submitting the question to the
electors of the county. They hold hat
the a of such bonds is not the
creation of a new Indebtedness or lia-
bility, within the constitutional rrohibi-
tion, but is merely a change in the evi-
dence of the debt from one bond to an
other, and that the approval of the
electors Is not essential to the validity OF
such action on the part of the county
commissioners.
My opinion, therefore, is that the board
may submit separately to the electors
the question of whether or not they shall
be empowered to issue ponds, at a GER
tain rate of interest, within the limit
provided by law, for the purpose of erect
ing and equipping a Jail. If the electors,
by their votes. shall empower the board
to do so, the board may, in It's discretion
or not. as it sees fit, issue the bonds, ans
the board may, at the same time, with
out submitting the question to the cleo
tors, and without regard to the isusanco
of the Jail bonds, issue %refunding bonds
at any time, to redeem those outstand-
ing. The two propositions are, there
fore, separate, and while there is no OBJ
lection to submitting both questions to
the electors, it is unnecessary to do SO
and might cause confusion on the par
of the %elector.
1t is understood, of course. that the
total amount of all bonds issued at any
time shall not exceed 5 per cent of tho
value of the taxable property in thu
county. Yours,
C. P. CONNOLLY.