East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1917-05-25
TEXT OF OPINION
REGARDING MONEY
FOR THE LIBRARY

llufAfS-
Salem. Ore. May ls.19lT.
Honorable r.. l. Keator,
Dist. Atty, Umatilla Co.,
Pendleton. Oregon.
Dear Sir:
/ have your favor of the 2Ith ulti-
mo, in which you ask my opinion
whether the city council of The City
of Pendleton MAY contract with the
county court Of Umatilla county TO
contribute to the support of the public
library owned and operated by said
county without violating section 3 OF
Article NJ OF the Constitution OF
Oregon. and setting out the facts
which cal forth this question. Said
section Of the Constitution reads as
follows:
NO county, city. town or other mu-
nieipal corporation, by a vote of it's
citizens or otherwise, shall become a
stakeholder in any DIN stock com
pany, corporation or association What
ever. or raise money for, or loan its
credit to. or i'm aid Of. any such com
pany, corporation. or association
Section 434S, Lords Oregon Laws.
which is a part of the public library
law of Oregon. reads as follows;
IF there exists in any Incorporated
city a secular or no~nsectarian library
owned and controlled by a society or
corporation, the council of such IN
co~rporated city city may. when deem
ed best for the interests of the city,
levy the tax he~reinbefore provided
for. and in lieu Of supporting and
maintaining a public library. enter in
to a contract with such society or cor
| poration for the purpose of providing
the inhabitants of such city with the
free use Of the library upon srch
terms and conditions as may De
agreed upon the council ana
the society or corporation; and the
terms of such contract may give the
control and management of the IL
brary to such society or corporation.
in which event section 4349 shall have
no effect. but the other sections there
of shall be considered to be a part of
said contract; provided. however.
that all money paid to such society or
corporation under said contract shall
be expended solely for the mainten-
ance of the library, and for no other
purpose"
II is. therefore. evident that the
city council has authority to make
such contract under the statute un-
less the same is in violation OF the
constitutional provision above quoted
and in fact they woul have such au-
thoritv independent of the statute. II
not prohibited by the Constitution
The supreme Court of Oregon in the
case of Municipal Security Co. VS..
Baker county. 80 Ore. 1896. at pages
4O3-7. considered the effect Of TINS
PROVISION of the Constitution ana lts
opinion as set forth on said pages Is
helpful in constituting its provisions
Quoting at page 405 from the decision
&C the Supreme Court OF OHIO as toi-
lows:
but ii (the city, cannot
engage in an enterprise with an in
dividual or corporation for the con-
struction or erection of a property
/ which. as a completed whole, is to be
owned and controlled in part by the
citv and in part by an individual cor
poration."
our court considering this language
says:
1--WE cannot believe that the langu-
age of oar constitution e~reinbeto
quoted is susceptible to the CONSTITUTE
ton given to "A similar clause by the
supreme Court of Ohio. nor Yield our
consent to the reasons assigned for
the decision there rendered"
The court then proceeds to explain
that this section of the Constitution
was adopted in view Of the experiN
enca Of municipalities of other states
taking stock in railroads and other
business concerns in order 10 develop
their communities and TO avoid the
disa strots results which followed such
investments n that it is not inteno-
ed to prevent a municipality from
- 4-.r.rFu~ dnFnftE With am
other person. association or corpora
ton. and concludes:
I'm the caseat bar. IL the relief de-
manded we're granted, the county
would not thereby become a stock
holder in any Joint stock company.
corporation, or association whatever;
nor would II be raising money for. or
Ioaning it's credit to or in aid of. any
such company. corporation or asso-
/! citation"
1t may be added tina this was a
case where the county had purchased
certain real property and issued its
warrants therefor. but on account OF
the constitutional limitation upon
county Indebtedness such warrants
were declared Invalid and the county
was sued to compel It TO reconvey the
undivided interest in such property
represented by the unpaid warrants.
IT. the present instance. the CITY
would not become a IN
any corporation. Joint stock company
or association. nor would IL be rails
ing money for or loaning its credit 10.
or in aid % any such cor
pcration or association. as the words
/ are there used. II has authority to
maintain a library either as the owner
thereof or by contract with another
10 maintain such library and furnish
library facilities 10 It's citizens and in
either case II does bot become a
stockhoIder Of or contribute In aid OF
the one furnishing the library facili-
ties. Il may in fact be an aid TO the
county for the city y make such
contract but il is also an aid 10 n
person. firm or corporation TO FUR
nish any city supplies and Il could
hardly be held that this r. a VIOLA
tion % said section of the Constttu-
ton for II 20 the county would be- in
. 3 aHHa.H -. sHH~aNaufmm ~ CONTRACT