Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-04-15

ty may be taken under condemnation
proceedings for public use" And it Is
further stated, p. 691, 1.-The true view
is that the condemnation proceedings
do not impair the contract, do not
break it's obligations, but appropriate
it, as they do the tangible property OF
the company, to public uses" See also
West River Bridge, supra, p. 532;
Cooley's Const. Lin. 9Th Ed, p. SAG, ct.
seq.
Could the contention Of the defense
on this point be sustained, then the ex-
istence of the contract would Withdraw
the property, during the life of the
contract, from the scope of the power
Of eminent domain.
Fifth: The City of Waterville, de-
PENDANT in this case contends that the
provisions of the act creating the Ken
nebec Water District, If carried out.
will increase the indebtedness of that
city beyond it's constitutional debt
limit and is, therefore, in contradiction
of Amendment l to the Constitution of
Maine, which reads as follows:
NO city or town shall hereafter
create any debt or liability, which
| singly, or the aggregate with previous
debts or liabilities shall exceed five
per centum of the last regular valua-
ton of said city or town.
1t appears from the report that the
valuation of the City of Waterville,
April 1, 1899. was $4,000, 767, and that
its net indebtedness on that day was
$23O,OOO
1t is admitted by the plaintiff cor
! nnr., ion that in
debtedness of the city on April 1, 1899,
should be taken as correct for all times
involved in this proceeding; and that
the value of the property proposed to
be taken by this process exceeds $780,
| 900.
| Applying well known rules of con-
stitutional construction to the language
of Amendment I, above quoted, it is
obvious that it applies only to cities
and towns. The language Of the
amendment is clear, plain and I'M
ambiguous. 1t can apply to cities and
towns only and not to any other form
of municipal or quasi municipal bodies.
| The question is, therefore, whether a
debt or liability created and incurred
by the water district will be a debt or
liability of the City of Waterville.
| The Kennebec Water District is a
quasi municipal corporation. 1t is de-
clared to be such by Section 10 of it's
enabling act. The powers, the rights
and property of the new corporation
rest exclusively in it, and in no degree
| in the City of Waterville.
| That the Legislature has authority to
| create the Water District as a quasi
| municipal corporation cannot be sue
ceSSfully questioned. In People V. Sal
| oman, 81 Ill. 81 in which was involved
the authority of the Legislature of ILL.,
| nOiS to create the South Park Com
| miSSionerS, the court sustaining the
authority of the Legislature declares,
| There is no prohibition which We have
| been able to discover, and we have
| been pointed to none, against the crea-
| ton by the Legislature, of every con-
| ceivable description of corporate au-
| thOrity, and when created to endOw
| them with all the faculties and attri-
| buteS of other pre-existing corporate
authorities. Thus, for example, there
| is nothing in the constitution of this
| state to prevent the legislature from
| placing the police department of Chi
| cago, or it's fire department, or it's
| water works, under the control of an
| authority which may be constituted for
| such purpose by a vote of the people,
| and endow it with the power to assess
| and collect taxes for their support, and
| confide to it their control and govern
ment."
| In the case at bar, the power to take
| private property for public use is
| granted to the Water District and not
| IA % in,,
| for the property so taken is to be paid
| by the Water District: the title to the
property which may be acquired by
| voluntary or enforced purchase is to
| vest in the District; to provide funds
for the payment of property purchased
or taken the District is authorized to
| issue bonds which, by the express
terms of it's charter, shall be legal OBJ
legations of the water district.
The charter of the Water District
confers no authority on the part of that
corporation to create or incur indebt-
edness against the city, nor does it
provide that the city shall be liable for
any debts or liabilities incurred by the
Water District.
| In Wilson V. Board of Trustees, 133
iii. 443, case parallel in principle to
that here at par, IL IS Helu lIdI TIC
constitutional limitation upon the ex-
tent of corporate indebtedness applies
to each municipal corporation singly,
and where one such corporation may
partially embrace the same territory as
others, it may contract corporate in
debtedness without regard to the in
debtedness of any other corporate body
embraced wholly or in part in its terri
tory.
The same doctrine is held in the late
case of futile v. Polk, 92 Iowa, ABB
The Court says, 1T Ohe constitution
recognizes the county and other pollt1-
cal and municipal corporations as be-
ing distinct entities. Although none
can incur an indebtedness in excess OF
five per centum of the value of the tax
able property within it's limits, yet the
same territory, and, therefore. the same
property, may be included within the
limits of different corporations, as
those of a county, city or town, and be
: subject to taxation for the debt OF