Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-08-30

single spaced typewriter sheets. After
designating the title Of the case-John
w. Rowley ct AL, vs.. George w.
Clarke, ct al he recites the prayer Of
the petitioners which is that the act
of the legislature providing for the
extension and Improvement OF the
capitol grounds at Dies Moines, be de-
clared unconstitutional and the state
enioined from collecting the levies that
have been made. The court then
analyses are act with which everyone
is already familiar. 1t makes u levy
of s2,O0O,OOO or Whereabouts for the
purpose Of purchasing additional
grounds surrounding the state capitoi
and improving the whole.
The court makes early announce"
ment that If the act is capable OF con.
struction that would be constitutional,
then It should be found so, regardless
Of the fact that another construction
might render 1t unconstitutional. he
then sees what constructions might be
placed upon It and in this connection
says:
"If the law is valid, no one would
question that 1t may be construed 20
confer upon the executive council
authority to anticipate the tax for the
whole Of the ten year period. IS II
susceptible of the construction that 1t
authorities the executive council TO
anticipate the tax for only the current
wear or biennial period? From the
language used in the act itself, IT Wonla
be q very strained construction TO SO
hold. The purpose of anticipating the
tax nv the issuance of the warrants or
certificates was to accomplish the
earliest possible completion of the
work contemplated by the ACT. ne
warrants or certificates may run for
a neriod OF not more than ten years.
why should these certificates, bearing
Ave per cent interest, run for ten years
II they are In anticipation OF the TAX
for only one year, or for the curren.
biennial period? The only reasonable
CONSTRUCTION of this act is that 1t
anthorizes the executive council to
ant,cinate the tax for the whole period
Of ten years"
Constitutes Debt.
With the fact settled that the execu,
tive committee is authorized IN the ACT
to anticipate the entire levy by the
issuance Of interest bearing certln
Gates, the court next turns to the all
important question: Is debt tnereoy
created? Va. az.
On this thread hangs the constttu-
tionality or the reverse of the Dill. Inc
court goes into this matter deeply
analyzes 1t carefully and cites numer'
GUS authorities. The article OF the
state constitution denying the leglsia-
ture the right to incur debt OF more
than $3.50, 900 except in certain cases
under which the case at bar clearly
does not come-is carefully defined.
The court then comments on the 1act
|that II is very apparent that the
trainers of the constitution took q
broad view Of the word debt ana ala
| not intend that loophole snouid De
left open by which the meaning OF the
oct could he obviated On this subject
the ruling says: ~.
! 1T is hardly conceivable that tne
people Of this state when they aoop.e :.
tha constitution, in seeking to pronlDl'
the contracting Of debts by or on pc
half az the state, without the SANCTION
Of the people, used language IN sec
Iion of article 7 that rendered sucn
|inhibitition meaningless. That IS, II
the contention is correct, then the
inhihitition against indebtedness IN
section article 7 is rendered inenec'
tive by the requirements In sala SCI,
ton that a SPECIAL fund snal oe
created to discharge sucn deDt, ;ne
creation of special fund out OF wnlcn
the debt shall be paid, as provlueo ~
said section, has the magic OF convel..
! ing what is called debt, IN the hlSt
mart thereof, to mere obllgation Juus
ciallv shorn Of its qualities OF debt ana
of it's burdens to the debtor. IL
statement Of the proposition Is sum.
c,ent to distinguish the case at par
from the numerous cases In this STATE
IN the subject of municipal debt. II
would seem that on account or tne
language used in section 5, the people
/, ~ the state gave the word DEBT q
broader meaning than has been given
tho word debt as used in section OF
| a rt,cle II Of the constitution by our
supreme court ., 49,
| further on the court says: III tnls
act does not authorize the creatlng o.
! a debt. in the issuance of the warran!'
Ior certificate, then there Is no neces
sity OF the state ever contracting 9
debt for any purpose Whatever anu
1.-The trainers of our constitution ana 'ne
neople who adopted it, unnecessarily
made use of the word debt In tne
con Institution" .,.
Stiu further on the court says: is
q nossible that the constitutional con
,,aption was so exercized over the ques
lion Of debt that it limited debt tc
.mnnly annual deficits or failures IN