Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1916-06-21
Nebraska
REFUSES REGISTER
OF DOUGLAS BONDS
State Auditor Smith Holds They
Did Not Receive Sufficient
Votes.
NOTICE TO THE COUNTY CLERK

Lincoln, Neb., June 20.-(Special
Telegram --Giving as his reasons
that sufficient number of votes were
not cast favoring the $l,700,0O0 road
paving bonds of Douglas county,
State Auditor Smith has declined to
register the sare and has so notified
County Clerk Dewey. y.
In refusing to register the bonds,
Auditor Smith says:
I'm reference to the bond histories pre-
sented to this department for approval In
which one proposition provides OF an is
suance of 81 500. 900 road paving bonds by
Douglas county and the other for an issue
Of 100000 OF road grading bonds. which
propositions were voted on al the recent
election held in said county, beg to say
that this department cannot approve the
same for the reason, in m yopinion, SUI
icient number OF votes were not cast IN
favor thereof.
Quotes Constitution.
Section >4Os, article 4 of the 1918 statutes
relating TO internal improvement bonds pro-
vides:
Result of vote. Upon a majority OF the
votes cast being in favor OF the proposition
submitted, the county board, IN the case Of
a county and the city council. In the case
Of 4 city, shall cause he proposition and
the result of the vote to be entered upon
the records OF said county or city, and a
notice OF its adoption to be published for
two successive weeks in any newspaper In
said county or city, IL there be one and II
not then without such publication; and
shalt thereupon issue said bonds, which
shall b. and continue subsis'ing debt
against such county or city, until they
are paid and discharged.
According to the certificate of the cleo
ton commissioner Of Douglas county, 2s,674
voters received ballots at the election at
which these propositions were submitted, a
majority of which would have been 14,7SS,
and there were cast for the road paving
bonds a total of 1886 votes, while there
were cast against the proposition 1902
votes. Thus this proposition, while 1t re-
ceived a majority of 313 votes of those cast
teived majority of ali the votes polled at
the election.
Road Grading Bonds.
I'm the case of the road grading bonds a
total Of 1910 votes were cast in favor
thereof and 1888 against, majority OF
iii Of those voting on the proposition
direct, but lacking 1,07S votes of receiving
a majority of all of those polled.
my conclusions in declining to approve
the histories and register the bonds are
based upon a number Of interpretations
placed upon laws relating to bond issues
by the supreme court of this state.
in the twenty-ninth Nebraska, report
page 400. IN the case Of state ex rel. Board
of Education, Omaha, vs.. Thomas H. Ben.
ton as state auditor, wherein the latter de-
clined to register an issue of bonds on
similar grounds, it was found that 1881
votes were cast for mayor, while 1880 were
| cast\ for thu bond proposition and 1881
| against. and 1t was held that the issuance
of bonds was not sanctioned by a majority
vote.
In the forty-third Nebraska report, page
$751; In the case of Douglas county VS.
| Charles G. Keller, ct al 1t was held thai
the sale of public property of county made
without the consent of a majority of the
electors voting at an election authorized
| by law, Is a nullity and passed no title
| to the uprchaser. In his case 1t Is set forth
that in the year 1886, over which election
| the controversy arose, there were cast il
Douglas county 1904 votes. of which 2,sSt
were in favor of the proposition and onl!
761 against, but that the condition pre-
scribed by law, the consent of the majorit!
of electors of the county, Is essential to
valid conveyance of the public propert.
and that the deed in this case was who'll.
unauthorized and ineffective for the purpos
Of passing title.
Cites Law Case.
| I'm the fiftieth Nebraska report page $40
| In the case of William j. Bryan, ct al VS.
city of Lincoln, ct al, implicated with Elme
B. Stephenson, appellant, wherein pro
position to authorize the issuance of fund
ing bonds was submitted to the electors Of {
city at the same time and place as thu
general city election. it was held to be on,
election, that the presumption is that al
the electors voted at such election, and tn,
proposition to work its adoption, must hav,
received a majority of all the votes cast a
such election
| II am therefore returning herewith tn,
bonds histories, in question, without APPROX
al, and shall accordingly decline to registe
ha do