The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1912-03-16
SUPREME COURT DECISION REACHES
MOSCOW; TELLS CITY HOW TO PAVE

t to the benefits derived to said prop
, erty by said improvements, sufficient
l to cover the total cost and expenses Of
r the work to the center of the street
and includes the construction of side
, walks, curbs, paving and cutters.
"5. This same section, however, in
paragraph 2 of subdivision 6, requires
that the expense of all improvements
in the space formed by the junction OF
one or more streets or wherein one
main street terminates in or crosses
another main street, and also all street
crossings and cross walks, shall be paid
city or village Indebtedness and
must be paid by city or village.
IS. Where streets are paved and
i the assessments are made against the
abutting property according to the
benefits, as provided in revised codes,
section 2238, improvement district
bonds may be issued by the city upon
the council passing proper ordinance
| ting the question of issuing the bonds
to the electors or taxpayers of either
the Improvement district or the city,
| but where the cost and expenses are
to be paid by the city and bonds are
to be issued for the purpose of raising
! revenue to pay the same, then such
question must be submitted to the
electors and taxpayers of the city and
must be by them authorized by proper
vote. Revised codes, sections 2515,
2316 and subsequent sections, as
amended by laws of 1909, p. ia.
81. Where several propositions with
reference to the issuing of municipal
bonds are to be submitted to the cleo
tors for vote, the same may be done
in single ordinance for that purpose,
by stating such propositions separate
ly so that the electors may express
their desire and vote upon each singly.
Where, however the propositions to be
determined are distinct and different
propositions and are to be determined
under different provisions of the stat
ute, then there should be a separate
ordinance with reference to each prop
osition
"8. Revised codes, section 1929 and
the subsequent sections, which were
originally adopted as the act Of March |
5, 1895, are repealed by the act Of
March 13, 1911"
Chief Justice Makes Issue Plain.
After discussing the facts and CIV
ing citations of the statute, Chief
Justice Stewart concludes his opinion
with the following clear statement
THE city of Moscow, therefore, is
clearly authorized and empowered to
pass proper ordinances for the propos
ordinances they may incorporate in a
single ordinance different propositions,
and in SO doing should state each
proposition separately and distinctly,
and especially so where such PROPOSE
tions are required to be voted upon
before such city is authorized TO issue
bonds for the purpose of
raising revenue to pay for the same,
so that the electors may be given full
opportunity to understand the propo-
sitiOns and express by their ballot the
desire of each voter upon each sep
arate proposition In the present case
there are two distinct and different
one of which is to be de-
-ermined upon a proper petition and
vote of the council and the other of
which requires action by the council
md also requires vote of the electors
If the city. The procedure, therefore,
alleged in the affidavit shows very
clearly that the city of Moscow has
lct followed the procedure required by
he statute.
This brings us to the question
whether the city of Moscow can make