American Falls press. [volume] (American Falls, Idaho) 1907-1937, 1913-12-11

in the I'M and proportion as
follows, to-wit: That the county of
Power shall pay such proportion of
sad Indebtedness as the total as
sessed value, as shown by the as
sessment rolls of 1912, of hat part
of Oneida county, hereby TAX
en- and declared to be a part of
Power, bears to the total assessed
value of Oneida county as it now
exists. etc"
By the provisions of this act. that
proportion of the bonded indebted
ness of Oneida county which Power
county is to assume is to be deter
mined by the bonded Indebtedness
of Oneida county existing and ow-
ing at the time this act takes eff
feet"
The question, then, is: What was
the bonded indebtedness of Oneida
county when the act creating Pow
or county became effective?
II as the appraiser of Oneida
county contends, the act creating
Franklin county did not alter the
amount of the bonded Indebtedness
of Oneida county existing and owing
al that time the act creating Power
county became effective. the bonded
Indebtedness of Oneida county was
$59,000.00; but if, on the other
hand, as the appraiser from Pow
err county insists the act creating
Franklin county reduced the amount
of the bonded Indebtedness OF
Oneida county. existing and owing
at the time the Power county act
took effect. $50, 100000, then sale
bonded Indebtedness OF Oneida cOun
ty was $29, 100000.
Did the act creating Franklin
county and the assumption b!
Franklin of $50, 100000 of the bond
ed indebtedness of Oneida count,
reduce in that amount the tota
bonded Indebtedness of Oneida couT
ty existing and owing at the tim
the act creating Power county" tool
effect?
Was the total bonded indebted
: ness of Oneida county existing an
owing at the time the act ~creatinI
Power county became effective $50
10000 or $4,000 90? This i
the question at issue.
1t is contended by the appraise
/. of Oneida county, and not denie
, by the representative of Power coul
ty, that the Power county bill wa
l introduced and passed in the legis
lature wholly independent of tn
Franklin county bill. and vic
versa, the Franklin county bill wa
2 introduced and passed in the legis
lature separate and apart from tn
Power county bill. Neither bill wa
S related to the other, so far as thei
integrity was concerned, and neitht
d bill was dependent on the other ]
Il any Wav for its massage.
But nevertheless, the Frankli
g county bill consummated a redu.
n ton in the amount of the tot;
, bonded indebtedness of what orig
nally was Oneida county; the Pow
er county bill provided for an a
n sumption by Power of a certain pr
$ portion of the bonded indebtedne'
3 of Oneida county; the Power coul
If ty bill was first considered al
d passed by the senate; the Frankl
it county bill was first considered an
" passed by the house; neither ID
therefore, having an appreciate a
is vantage in point of time as
Id what was the legislative inter
'e Both of these bills were sent to Il
m chief executive of. the state al
v signed by him on the same date
both of these bills, carrying emer
ency clauses. became effective
o, the same day and resulted in ma
is ing three legal subdivisions
by what originally was Oneida county
er Because of these conditions. a