The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1923-08-18

AuS SOpASAue COuItS III u OcCISlOl
handed down today. upheld tn
'egality Of the bond election hel,
in Bismarck on May IA at which
'itizens voted on the question O.
issuing 1926, 900 bonds for the pur
bose Of purchasing or construct
rg a water plant for the city
The decision was A to l, Chic
Justice Bronson dissenting.
Chicago bond attorneys to whom
all the city proceedings were sub
mitted after bonds had been sole
asked for a court decision upol
the question of whether or not thu
question submitted to the voter.
was double question and whether
'r not majority vote Of all vot.
,rs or only a majority Of those vot
ng was necessary to make tht
election legal.
The decision of the court now is
expected to make possible ar
early approval Of the bond issue
~ the Chicago bond attorneys, the
early payment. of money on bonds
md warrants to the city. the ear.
v payment of contractors fol
work. already done on additions ia
ne present plant, and the early
taking over Of the plant of the
Bismarck Water Supply Company.
- The supreme court sustained
Judge Jansonius of the district
'ourt. The decision was by JUS
ice johnson with Justices Birdzell
md Nuessle and District Judge
Jerry signing the majority opin-
on. Justice Ohriauianson was
disqualified.
Question Submitted
!, The question submitted to the
loters at the May election read:
Shall the City of Bismarck issue
ponds in the sum of 1925, 100000 in
he denomination of 100000
zach, payable one-twentieth each
lear for twenty years, with inter-
,st thereon at the rate of 5 per
'ent per annum, payable semi an
.lually, such interest payments to
',e evidenced by interest coupons
attached to such bonds, for the
purpose of constructing or purch-
sing waterworks for the furnish
ang of a supply of water to the in
.labitants of such City," the vote
vas 1887 for and 80 against.
; A friendly suit was brought by
Roy. Logan, Fred Peterson and C..
Bertsch attacking the legality of
he election. The city was defend
ID by City Attorney C. L. Young.
c. L. Crum filed a brief, in the
..upreme court as a friend of the
court attacking the legality.
The plaintiffs alleged the elec-
lion void because there was q
double question, holding that the
question of purchasing water
)lant and constructing a waite,
plant should have been separated.
(. It also was alleged that a ma
ority of all voters did not vote
'nsfavor of the proposition.
!. Also that the commission ex-
ceeded it's powers in that the ordi-
rance, providing for the issuance
Of the bonds, requires that they
shall be paid in twenty years, one
!: wentieth each year, but that the
contract calls for payment Of less
:han one-twentieth each year fol
sl9 years and more than one-twen-
tieth at the end Of the twentieth,
his method being adopted to make
.,ayments "come out even."
Courts View
Z 1T seems to us that the real
question submitted to the voters
whether, the bonded indebted
ness of the city shall be increased
~ the amount specified as neces-
:ary for the contemplater i'm
orovement in the instant case, foi
he purpose of providing q system
Of waterworks," says the. courts
opinion. "The maximum permis.
sible general indebtedness, under
the statutes is five percent Of the
assessed value OF the property In
the city; for the purpose Of ac-
.quiring . system Of water-worki
Gy purchase or original construc-
ton, four percent additional in.
debtedness may be incurred
Whether such Indebtedness shal
be incurred. in addition to indebt-
ednsss already existing, s. the real
IA Cohtinved on PaGo ThIee)