Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-12-20

raw Ora will,ams.l


on behalf Of those who have the mat
ter in charge, and who are alone re-
sponsible for the detail management
of the capitol grounds extension, that
we will proceed with moderation and
conservatively along the Identical line
mapped out last summer to carry out
the will Of the people" so stated
member of the executive council.
Now that the whole matter Is dis
posed of. so far as the effort to check
mate the move is concerned, 1t Is worth
while to know that the matter of the
| exact extent of the purchase OF ground
has never been determined, the amount
it will cost is not known, and there
is not now and never has been any
suggestion of Issuing certificates in any
large amount.
| 1t is very probable that when the re-
ports come in from the contracts as to
land options, the state officials will
then determine just how much of the
property will be purchased, for it was
left wholly to the discretion of the
executive council, to be determined
after consideration of all matters
which might not come to the attention
of the legislature. There is some of
the property in the tract fixed as the
limit of authority which might be pur-
chased but which is not at all essential
to the general scheme Of giving Iowa
proper setting for it's capitol.
The court decision will make 1t
comparatively easy to issue certificates
in any amount that might possibly
be wanted for it leaves the position of
the certificate holder doubly assured.
! Already offers have been made for GER
! tifcates. The state treasurer will have
their disposal Some of the property
owners will take the warrants and ask
! no questions. The business end of the
! matter is now in excellent condition.
The opinion of the full bench Of the
! supreme court in the capitol tax case
is comparatively short. considering
/ the Importance of the case and the
! scope OF the arguments made by the
| attorneys. But the court did not go
! back into a great many of the matter
which the lawyers discussed, for in
| stance, it brushed aside all the stuff re-
| garding what this or that member OF
| the constitutional assembly meant
when he was discussing a state debt
and trying to pinch the state down to
the smallnesS of territorial days. The
court merely passed 1t all up and de-
| c!Ced that what is now being done IS
not creating debt" such as the con-
stitution sought to prohibit. The opn-
| ion filed, however, was only hastily re-
viewed in the newspaper stories made
! public thus far. 1t is worth while max
Ing little more critical and detailed
! study Of the opinion, that there shall
| be no misunderstanding. The court de-
cided as to main questions, that
The power Of the state thru the leg
/ lslature, in matter Of taxation, is not
restricted.
The contemplated purchase Of the
! ground needed for state purposes is
legal in the manner planned.
The act contemplates that the state
executive council shall have discre-
ton as to purchase of any or all Of
the ground shown on the plat which
was adopted as the maximum area to
be considered.
| 1t contemplates purchase of the
ground from time to time in ten
| year period.
issue certificates anticipating revenues
actually sure to come.
Such certificates may bear interest
and they are not in violation of the
| constitution.
That in addition to making use OF
the revenues in sight the council may.
under the act borrow to the limit Of
! the state debt.
| That the act does not contemplate,
and 1t is not presumed that anyone
! contemplates, mourning debt such as
the constitution forbids.
That every paragraph Of the entire
act is legal and constitutional.
These points cover the things that
We're In controversy. Judge Hunter
while he did not have the entire act
before him but only that part which
related to tax levy for this year in
one county, held the entire act uncon-
stitutional and void. He is reversed in
toto. Judge Apologize held that oniy
one years tax levy could be considered
in issuing certificates or making con-
tracts: but the court reversed this and
said ii was not sound. Applegate also
held that as to all that part Of the act
which provides machinery for issuance
Of certificates so that the state would
be in a better position for driving a
good bargain, it was all void and could
not be considered. This, also, was COM
pletely reversed. While the undisputed
evidence in the case showed that the
council had at no time considered an
ticipating all of that-yet the supreme
court went further and held it might,
If in its discretion this was found to
be best, anticipate for the biennial per-
iod, and then if there should be de-
f1cit it could borrow UP to the consti
tutional limit of quarter million. So
the court really went great deal
further than 1T was asked to go or than
there ever will be any occasion for go
ing. 1t held not merely that what the
council planned to do. which the law
plainly contemplated, was all right, but
that council might go much further ii
that were necessary in order to safe
guard the interests of the taxpayers
That an understanding of the case
might be had, the court, at the outset
quoted from the act authorizing the
executive council to proceed to extend
the capitol grounds and Ito purchase
from time to time within said period OF
ten years any or all Of the real estate
not already owned by the state" ETC.,
also that for the purpose Of accom-
, plishing the earliest possible compile.
, ton Of the work contemplated herein
and the carrying out of the plans pro.
: vided for in this act, the executive
council may anticipate the collection o.
the tax herein authorized" etc. As tt
the character Of these certificates and
their relation to the business method
OF the state the court said:
Plainly enough, the certificates con