The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-12-04
BOND CASE ARGUED.
Validity of the Water Bonds at
Issue.
DEBT LIMIT QUESTION
CASE ARGUED BY CITY ATTOR-
NEY STEPHENS.

Arguments were made In the supreme
court yesterday in the injunction suit
brought by ". p. O'Meara to test the
validity of the city's issue Of water
bonds. Francis Hoppaugh appeared for
Mr.. O'Meara and the city was repre-
scented by Frank b. Stephens. Cues
tions asked by the three judges indi-
Gated a decision in favor of the city
The point in contention related To the
constitutional limitation of the bonded
indebtedness of cities, This constitu-
tional provision limits the bonded debt
Of any city, including Indebtedness ex-
listing at the time the constitution was
Trained. TO per cent of the assessed
valuation. bat permits additional bond
issue Tor waterworks, lighting plant or
services to an amount not exceeding
1 per cent of the assessed valuation,
thus limiting the total bonded debt t..
Per cent. 4 he bonded debt of the city
for general purposes was quite or very
nearly per cent of the valuation at
the time OF the adoption Of the consti-.
tuition. and the question to be deter
mined was whether under these circUm-
stances an additional 4 per cent could
be incurred for WaterWOrks. or wheth-
er the constitution was intended to
limit the total debt to 5 per cent. in
Guiding existing Indebtedness.
Attorney Stephens spoke first. He
held that although the city's indebted
ness, for general purposes, is now
equal to s per cent OF the total as
SeSSment the trainers of the cOnsti-
tuition clearly intended TO allow the
debt to be increased for special pur-
poses. such as sewer and waterwOrks
improvements
An issue of bonds for water purposes.
Mr.. Stephens argued, must be an en-
tlrely separate Indebtedness, and the
constitution was framed with this idea
IL view. Although the city is now up
to or over the per cent limit, Mr..
Stephens hardly thought the court
would consider obligations incurred
over and above s per cent as invalid
after they had been contracted in good
faith.
Judge Miner wanted to know if the
$3.50. 600 water bond issue was less than
( per cent of the citys debt. In an
swer to the question Mr. Stephens
stated that the city could issue $3.50
more in water bonds, or 81. 600 600 in all,
before iJ reached the 4 per cent limit
contemplated by the constitution
Mr.. Hoppaugh's Argument.
Replying to the city, Mr.. Hoppaugh
urged that bond issue for special pur-
poses should not and could not be seq
regated from the heavier obligations
for general purposes referred to by Mr.
Stephens. There was no dispute about
AtiC lily itON BEiAS uP ~ tNN run uCbt
limit for general purposes He thought
it was undoubtedly the intention of the
constitution makers to prevent cities
from going into debt to 4 greater eK-
tent than per cent for any and all
purposes.
The provision giving the power to
create an Indebtedness of 4 per cent
for special purposes was not effective,
in Mr.. Hoppaughs judgment, unless
the previous Indebtedness Of the NUM-
cipality did not exceed 4 per cent. Thus
the general and the special indebted
ness would aggregate only s per cent
This was the letter Of the law, accord
ing to the attorney for the plaintiff,
and it was also the clear spirit of the
law.
other points set up by Mr.. Hop
paugh-in his brief, alleging irregularity
in the bond election, such as failure to
canvass the vote at the proper time and
failure by the council to designate
places for voting, were not pressed.