The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1913-12-16
STATE WINS IN
| CAPITOL EXTENSION
Ruling Of the Iowa Supreme Court in
the Capitol Extension Case
Gives to iowa a Sweep.
Ing Victory.
OPPOSED BY RowLEY
Van Buren, County Editor and Others
Resisted the Law Providing for
Levy to Extend State
House Grounds.

DIES MONIES, Iowa, Dsc. 16.-The
state Of Iowa won sweeping vic
tory in the capitol extension case yes
terday when the supreme court upheld
every contention made by Attorn sy
General Cosson in his defense of the
law enacted by the last general assem-
bly,. The law, briefly, provided that a
half mill levy be made for two years
and that a levy which would raise
$15O00O be made each year for eight
years following. The whole amount
is to be used in the purchase OF ad
ditional grounds about the present
capitol building and the Improvement
OF thess grounds.
Action to have the law declared I'M
constitutional was brought by John
w. Rowley and others Of Keosauqua.
One suit was against the officers OF
Van Buren, county and the other
against state officials. The cases are
combined in the opinion as handed
down by the supreme court
The court holds that the state may
anticipate the two years levy and
$3.50 900 in excess Of that. The con-
tention of those opposed to the law
was that 1t provided for a debt in ex-
cess of the constitutional limit Of
$250,0oO. Under the ruling Of the
court the state may issue warrants
for the years 1914 and 1915, which
under the half mill levied will amount
to about $460,000 year, and in addi-
ton to that may anticipate $250.OOO
for 1915 or succeeding years. This
gives the state more power than II
asks for as the executive council al
ready placed itself on record as in
favor of anticipating the tax year by
year and not in the total amount.
The opinion is written by Justice
Laid. It covers forty-two pages. I
was handed down at 4:30 Monday
evening, together with twenty-five
other opinions.
The court put the contention of thf
plaintiffs into four question as fol
lows:
i. Would these certificates, If is
sued, constitute expenses not other
wise provid ed fol-" within the mean
ing Of the article Of the constitu
4 ton?
The court held that the law did no
constitute expenses not otherwss
> provided for. but that 1t was cor
yenience for the state to get tn
best bargain possible.
9. Can the executive council antic
pate the revenue collectable With
! the biennial period by the issuanc
of certificates in advance, payabl
\ therefrom as authorized withou
4 creating a debt within the remain'n
of these sections!
: The court held that 1t can.
n 3. II these inquiries be answere
h in the Affirmative, should the act b
If interpreted as empowering the exec
" tive council to issue certificates
+ authorization of current revenues an
Is in an amount beyond these not e
.. ceeding s250,OO0 or equaling the &C
k lectable taxes during the entire tie
b. wears within which leviss are direc
IT ed to be made?
v The court held It did
,g a. If the latter be the true co
~ struction then does the act authori;
- The creation OF a dsbt In excess
: the constitutional limitation?
is The court holds that a debt Is n
"a created in the capitol extension la
= IN excess OF the s25o,ooo lin1itatie
20 and that only that amount may be
tictpated at one time by ce1tifcat
!. after the levying OF the biennial ia
q