Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-08-19

Stdte norman ScnOOl out or q fund pro-
vided for their payment.
The supreme court held that the
bonds were not bonds of the normal
school; that 1t was an entity, and had
no power to issue bonds, and follow.
Ing the supreme courts of Wiscon-
sin, South Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and
Iowa held that 1t was not corpora
ton that could be sued, and there
fore 1t could not issue bonds, and that
the bonds In question were the bonds
OF the state; that they We're void, be-
cause they were issued in excess Of
the constitutional limitation: that al.
though not issued In the name of the
state, nor supporting on their face,
or In the act OF the legislature under
which they were issued to be the
bonds OF the state, yet In fact they
were the bonds Of the state, and
would create debt against the state,
although payable, alone. from q spe-
cial fund provided for their payment.
In this decision the supreme court
OF North Dakota quotes from, clearly
approves and follows the reasoning
and decision in the case Of Newell vs..
People. supra.
The legislature OF Illinois, by an
act passed In 1859, designated a tract
Of land near Chicago for city park
and provided for It's improvements,
and directed a board of park commits
sioners TO buy the land and pay for
II out OF bonds and money coming
into their hands, such lands to lie
conveyed to and vest in the city, to
be used for park purposes The act
further provided that the city should
issue its bonds to pay for the land,
but not to exceed the sum Of $500, 900,
to be paid out Of q special fund Gre
ated for that purpose, and secured
by lien on the park land. The COM
mission bought the land for $500, 900,
but the officers refused to Issue the
bonds. and mandamus proceedings
were brought against them. In that
case, People vs.. Mayer, set 81, Illinois
II, the supreme court said: There
is another view we have taken of this
case. to which we will now avert, and
which seems to us to settle the ques-
ton beyond all controversy. BY sec
ton 81 OF article OF our constitu-
ton the state Is prohibited from Gre
ating debt In excess Of q certain
amount without the consent of the
people manifested by vote at gen
eral election, and the law authorizing
it's creation Is required to be publish
ed at least three months before the
vote is taken, and provision Ia re-
Quired to be made at the same time
for the payment Of the interest an
ually as It may accrue, by q tax to
be levied for that purpose. or from
other sources Of revenue. which law
providing for the levying Of such tax
is also to be submitted to the people
with the law providing for the con-
tracing of the debt. SO sensibly i'm
pressed were the trainers Of the con,
stitution Of the liability OF legisls,
tive bodies to incur debts, sometime ed
for objects not altogether praise
worthy or useful, and the hazards
losses ana disturbances to which they
led. that they interposed the power
I Of the people at the very threshold
to prevent this danger-to tie up the
hands of the legislature-on this
subject; to divest 1t of a power which,
dear bought experience has satisfied
the people should not be left unre.
strained"
Constitutions Of all states, 80 far
40 can ascertain contain provisions
similar to ours, limiting the amount
of state indebtedness the legislature
may authorize or incur without a ref.
erendum to the people. and there ID
a surprisingly few cases in the books
constituting such provisions. This
speaks plainly Of the interpretations
placed on them by the legislatures,
for the disposition Of legislative bod.
les to provide internal public I'm.
provements, many of them commend.
able, is such that no doubt great la
bilities would have been authorized
but for the restraining hand of the
people appearing in such limitations
Y Attention has already been given
to one OF them from New York, an.
other from North Dakota and another
from Illinois. Reliance is placed b.
the defendants upon the case of Cali
fornia VS.. McCauley, Is Cal. ass. as
supporting their contention. The con
stitutional provision Of that state
fixes the limit to which the legisla
ture may authorize at 100000. The
case arose upon an act of March 81
1855, whereby the state agreed to pay
one Estell, lessee Of the prison. $40.
900 per month for five years, for talk
ing care of the states prisoners. II
was held that the contract was not
in violation Of the constitutional linn
itation provision, for the well recos'
nized reason that no debt was, under
the contract, incurred until the SER
vices were rendered, and then only
as they were rendered month by
month. OF course If the lessee failed
to render the services after the first
month, all that would be due hin
would be for that one month, and 80
on. The defendants also cite Kapping
VS.. State Capitol Commission, Is Cal
248. That case arose under an act All
thorizing the commission to build a
state capitol building not to cost
more than 100000, and appropriated
100000 to carry the act into effect,
and in the case it was insisted that
the act was In violation Of the con
stitutional limitation, but the gu
preme court found that "the legisla.
ture undoubtedly intended by the
provision to indicate the amount
within which the work is to be con.
structed and to furnish, in some re.
spect, guide to the commissioners