The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1903-06-05

the district The directors. however,
must submit the question of issuing
bonds to the electors of the district
Section 11S to 127 of the Code Of Pub
lie instruction. provide the method to
be employed by the board of directors
in submitting the question to the cleo
tors, and all details necessary to the
issuance of bonds. Any attempt of the
board Of. directors to build a school
house except by one of the two meth
DDS above set forth. is clearly illegal
and without authority of law. 1t is
illegal first. by reason OF tbs fact that
the directors are forbidden to incur
any Indebtedness in excess of the cur
rent revenue. 1t is illegal by reason
Of the fact that the school district is
already Indebted practically to the
constitutional limit. even if we take
into consideration the warrant indebt-
ness alone. and it is illegal by reason
Of the fact that il fails to recognize
the exclusive method provided by law
tor furnishing funds for the building
Of school house.
Against the school district there is
now standing a bonded Indebtedness
Of $4,000 represented by two issues.
one Of $25 600 issued in 1891. and one
Of 100000 issued in 1898 The bonds
Of 1891 were issued for the purpose
OF funding the outstanding indebted
ness Of said district, repairing and i'm
proving the Baker school house. pur-
chasing furniture, apparatus and fuel
for the schools in said district" The
bonds of 1898 were Used for the pur-
pose of buying additional school house
grounds, building and furnishing an
eiglt-rOOm brick school house and
the paying Of part of a warrant in
debtedness OF the district" All of the
moneys derived from the sale of
these bonds was used for the purpose
Of paying outstanding Indebtedness
Of the district
In the case Of Hunt VS.. FaWcett ct
al, SO Pacific 31S, the supreme court
OF the state of Washington held that
bonds issued for the purpose of paying
the outstanding warrants constituted
part OF the one and one half per
cent constitutional limit of indebted
ness. We are therefore led 10 believe
that in determining the question as
to whether School District No l is
now beyond the constitutional limit
of indebtedness, we must take into
account not only all outstanding war
rants Of the district. but also all out
standing bonds Of the district
1t IS true that the call for the issuance
Of the bonds and for the authorization
OF the taxpayers Of the district to
such issuance, includes the creation
OF certain Indebtedness But the call
is not sufficiently specific for anyOne
to ascertain what part of the money
derived from the sale of the bonds
was to be used for the payment of the
past Indebtedness, and what part vas
to be used for the payment Of indebt-
edneSS to be created in the future, and
when the authorities of the district
saw fit to use the funds obtained from
the sale of bonds in payment Of past
Indebtedness exclusively, they fixed
and determined the character of the
Indebtedness for which they were
authorized, and excluded therefrOm
all Indebtedness to be created in the
future. We therefore conclude that
the present indebtness of School Dis
trlct No l created and existing with
out any authority other than that of
the school directors alone is as fol
lows:
Warrant Indebtedness $ 6o,791O1I
Bonded debtedness ..... 30 600 90