Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1904-05-21
ORDINANCE VETOED IN PART
Mayor Register Vetoes Two Sections Of the
WaterWorks Ordinance and Part Of the
Third Text Of the: Veto.

Third Hi \ I ext Of 4
Mayor Register has filed his veto Of
parts Of the water works ordinance, az
follows: s.s
To the City Council Of the City Of Bis
marck, N. D:
gentlemen; The provisions Of an
ordinance passed by your body on the
Ath day OF May, 1904 entitled IAN
ordinance granting 4 license and fran.
chise to the Bismarck Water Supply
Company, its successors and assigns,
to lay water mains and pipes in the
streets Of the city Of Bismarck,,' have
been carefully examined by me, and
after a consideration thereofsit is my
opinion that certain parts 81 the ordi-
nance in question regarding the incur
ring expense on the part ofs thescity
for q period Of twenty years beginning
May rs, 1906 and extending to. May rs,
1926, are unlawful, and that you are
powerless through the proposed ordi-
nance, or otherwise, to bind the city
in any sum q money, Or BY any debt,
which 10 not required tosmeet the cur
rent expense Of the present fiscal year
through a previous appropriation ordi-
nance .5ssSa,s; Nv, S4 . -
am therefore constrained to veto
all that portion OF section 2 Of the said
ordinance, which relates to contract
with the city of Bismarck making said
city liable for, the use of water: for
sprinkling streets and flushing sewers,
such liability beginning at :ass future
date and reaching over q period Of
twenty years. I also veto all Of sec
tion 3 and 9 OF said ordinance.
Section 1854 Of the Revised Codes,
1899, provides: '.No contract shall be
made by the city council and no ex-
pense shall be incurred BY any officers
or departments Of the corporation,
whether the object Of the expenditures
shall have been ordered by the city
council or not, unless an appropriation
shall have been previously made con-
corning such expense, except as here
in otherwise expressly provided" I
would also refer you to section 1851 Of
said code which defines the fiscalyear,
and likewise to section 1862, which
prescrtbes how appropriatdons are to
be made, and limits the council to the
expenditures called for by an annual
appropriation bill embracing only such
sums Of money as are or may be deem
ed necessary to defray all the neces-
sary expenses and liabilities Of the
city for each fiscal year. The last
named section also restricts the coun-
Gil in expenditure Of any other sum
Of money unless SO appropriated ex-
cept that additional expenditures can
be made for the current fiscal year up
on a majority vote OF the legal voters
Of the city at a general election, or a
special election held for that purpose.
B The supreme court OF this state has
construed these sections in Roberts
VS.. The City Of Fargo, 10 N. D., page
270, decided April IS, 1901. It is held
In said case that its provisions "are
mandatory and prohibitive and 'that no
contract requiring . disbursement OF
city funds can be made by the city
council and no expense can be incur.
/ red by any city officer, or officers, un.
less a previous appropriation has been
made covering the expenes involving
the same" It will be observed that
the said sections are restrictive 10
their nature and are without doubt in.
tended to operate as q safeguard
against mourning unwise Indebtedness
by municipal officers, and there is nc
doubt that the present city council are
without authority Of power To- incur
any expense which will at all bind the
city for any prospective year included
In the term Of the proposed ordinance