Court Opinion

ID: 9631588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:43:52.972506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:57.637917
License: Public Domain

DAVISON, Justice
(dissenting).
In every opinion adopted by this court since statehood we have construed sections 26 & 27 of Article 10 of our State Constitution as self-executing and have over the years, without exception, given said sections a strict construction. These sections of the Constitution expressly prohibit the agreement contemplated by the defendants. In my opinion the majority of my associates have by the present opinion, over-ruled a number of cases without discussing or mentioning any of them.
The pertinent part of section 26, Article 10, reads as follows:
“No county, city, town, township, school district, or other political corporation, or subdivision of the State, shall be allowed to become indebted, in any manner, or for any purpose, to an amount exceeding, in any year, the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of three-fifths of the .voters thereof, voting at *145an election, to be held for that purpose. * * * ”
The act of the City in leasing its airports, which in effect constitutes a pledge of the revenues therefrom, violates the above section of the constitution, in that the city attempts to become indebted in an amount exceeding the revenue provided for any year without the assent of the voters thereof, and is void. This is true under the agreement of the city to pay the cost of maintenance, insurance and for damages for personal injuries or property during a prospective period of twenty-seven years.
Some of the leading cases which would invalidate the agreement involved herein as being unconstitutional are as follows: City of Tecumseh v. Butler, 148 Okl. 151, 298 P. 256; City of Tulsa v. Langley, 196 Okl. 680, 168 P.2d 116; Zachary v. City of Wagoner, 146 Okl. 268, 292 P. 345; City of McAlester v. State ex rel. Board of Public Affairs, 195 Okl. 1, 154 P.2d 579; Burch v. City of Pauls Valley, 201 Okl. 78, 201 P.2d 247; In Re The Application of City Council of City of Tahlequah, Okl., 285 P.2d 418, 421.
The majority opinion relies on prior decisions of this court pertaining to the financing of State Institutions and State Parks. These decisions are inapplicable here due to the fact that the State is not limited by sections 26 and 27 of Article 10, supra. The sections pertain to cities and other political corporations or subdivisions of the State but not to the Sovereign State. This was completely demonstrated in the case of. In Re Application of City Council of City of Tahlequah, supra, written by the author of this dissent, wherein we definitely pointed, out the distinction between proceedings concerning self liquidation indebtedness of the Sovereign State, and proceedings involving municipalities. In that opinion we said:
“The views and argument herein expressed have no application to proceedings concerning self liquidation indebtedness of the sovereign state for the reason that municipalities are limited and restricted by the provisions of Art. X, section 27, of the Constitution which has no application to the state. This distinction was recognized in the quotation from the Burch case, supra.”
The decisions of this court have been uniform in determining that a special revenue bond issue of the State of Oklahoma to be valid do not have application to a similar proceeding by a municipality. Such an act or proceeding involving a municipality to be valid must fall within the provisions of - sections 26 or 27, supra. Sec, also, Law Review, comment in 3 Okla. Law Review, page 337 for a good discussion covering the distinction made herein.
The majority opinion also relies on the case of Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. Warram, Okl., 285 P.2d 1034. This opinion is not applicable here. There the court upheld the Public Trust Law and permitted the issuance of “revenue bonds” by the Trustee of the Trust. However, in doing so it was recognized that there was no debt created by the Trustees that even became an obligation of Oklahoma County, the beneficiary. Such is not the case here for the reasons herein-before stated.
No doubt the city council thought the execution of the agreement involved herein was for the best interest of the city. Every member of the City Council who was present at the meeting held for such purpose voted in favor of the agreement. Apparently each member voted his honest conviction and from a business standpoint were guided in the thought that their actions would be beneficial to Oklahoma City in many ways. I do not doubt the wisdom of the members of the City Council in voting for the agreement and I am of the opinion that the execution of and the carrying out of the same to its ultimate conclusion would be advantageous to the growth and prosperity of Oklahoma City. However, courts do not and should not concern themselves with the expediency or wisdom of laws, but only with their legality. .
*146The majority opinion has driven a wedge into Sections 26 & 27 of Article 10 so that a precedent has been made for future city counc.ilmen in this and other cities to follow. Perhaps many future city councilmen in this and other cities will not have the wisdom possessed by the members of the present Oklahoma City Council.
In my opinion under our previous interpretations of the sections of the constitution involved herein, and considering all of the facts contained in the agreement, same should only be declared legal by a vote of the taxpayers as prescribed by the constitution.
I therefore respectfully dissent.