Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-11-06
ROOSEVELT COUNTY
ROAD PROJECT GETS
SUPREME COURT OK.
Commissioners Authorized to
Sell Bonds Totaling More
Than 100000.
(TribUne's Helena Bureau)

Helena, Nov. 5.-The county com
missioners of Roosevelt county may
proceed to the issuance and sale of
funding highway bonds to the extent
of $1oI. 900, as authorized under
their order of August J.. 1921, ac-
cording TO a decision of the supreme
court handed down Saturday which af-
firms the district court of that county
in denying an injunction against the is
suance of such bonds.
The opinion, which was delivered by
Associate Justice W. l.. Holloway.
shows that during the period from
January !, 1919. to July 81. 1921, the
Roosevelt county commissioners had
procured work to be lone and mate
rails furnished for the construction,
repair, improvement and maintenance
of public roads and bridges. and in pay
ment therefor had issued warrants ag-
gregating $4,000. On August |,
1921, interest on these warrants had
accumulated to an amount of more
than $4,000 and at that time there
was in the road fund a sum not eX-
ceeding S21 900.
To meet the situation the commits
sioners directed the application Of the
road none on hand to the redemption
of warrants and to issue funding bonds
to the amount of 100000 to be eN-
ShhiStu loI lHt DdidIIt VI tIt wa
rants.
Against Bond Issue
Thereupon Fred Turner. q resident
taxpayer of Roosevelt county. insti-
tuted an action TO enjoin the issu-
ance of the bonds. A temporary in
junction was granted, with an order
to how cause why the injunction
should not be made permanent. In
their answer the commissioners set
forth in detail tho ,t,arJ- tI,o+ hnI hanr
done and the amount of the warrant
issued in payment of each item, dis
closing that in no instance did the
liability for a single contract or piece
of work exceed $4,000. The court
thereupon refused a permanent in
junction and dissolved the temporary
injunction and Turner appealed from
both orders.
The right of the commissioners to
issue funding bonds to be exchanged
for valid warrants was not questioned
but it was insisted that all of the war
rants in excess of $4,000 were in
valid and that bonds above that
AMOUNT. if issued, would likewise be
illegal. this contention being taken
under the provision of Section >. Ar
ticle IS. of the constitution. which is:
mo county shall incur any indebted
ness or liability for any single purpose
10 All dtllOuIt FNlPptilBS 'NIo,Obu Will
out the approval Of a majority Of the
electors thereof voting at an election
to be provided by law
1t was the contention of the relator.
that all the public roads of Roosevelt
county constitute a single system and
that work done upon them. although
distributed generally about the county.
constitutes a single undertaking.
The opinion says:
auN1-z Ell c-1. ,,I .nEfr,+ nf chic
contention becomes apparent in the
light of the fact that Roosevelt county
contains more than 1000 square miles
Of territory: that it had BIZ duly
established public roads, and that one
of the great transcontinental highways.
the Roosevelt Trail, crosses the county
from east to west for a distance OF
more than 80 miles: that these roads
extend to every part Of the county.
and that the work for which the war
rants were issued was done at different
places upon these different roads and
under different contracts"
After quoting various decisions bear
ing upon this subject and reviewing
the debates in the constitutional con
~vention upon the above section the
opinion reads:
Question of Wording
-tttOIhiiS ~ ipFipNth uHaS'' 'I'h-
the words single purpose" convey to
the mind the idea of one object. project
or propositions unit isolated from
all others. In other words to consti-
tute q single purpose, the elements
which enter into it must be so related
that when combined they constitute an
entity: something complete in itself but
and apart from other objects.
I'm the light of this construction Of
the language employed in our consti-
tuition it cannot be said that the COM
missioners of Roosevelt county eX-
ceeded their authority in disposing of
county road work in the manner
indicated. We do not mean to intimate
that commissioners may. by making
arbitrary or artificial divisions Of work.
which manifestly constitutes but one
project. and by issuing separate war
rants to separate contractors for sepa- !
rate units thus created evade the pro
Of the constitution, but we do
say that in no proper sense Of the
terms can it be held that, as applied
to this road work. a c~llvert nj MOndak.
n cut at Froid. a fill at CulbertsOn, the
removal of m OBSTRUCTION at Poplar.
the repair of a defect at Wolf Point
and the l~eveling of the surface at
Bainville, constitute n project. or
that warrants severally issued for
sent an Indebtedness or liability for a
single purpose. even though these
are all connected by the public