Court Opinion

ID: 4721235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 02:36:39.012191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:39.099478
License: Public Domain

Hoyt, C. J.
(dissenting).—In my opinion the statute under consideration conferred authority upon the the hoard therein provided for to change the form of the evidences of the debt which was owed by the state, and did not in-any manner contemplate the increase of such debt. If this be so, a compliance therewith would not be the creation of a debt, within the meaning of the constitutional provision upon that subject. The issuing of a warrant in the ordinary course of .business is not the creation of a debt. The obligation for which the warrant is issued is the debt which the state owes, and the issuance of the warrant is the method provided by statute for the payment thereof. When there is no money in the treasury to meet a warrant issued for that purpose, such warrant may constitute the evidence of the indebtedness, hut not the indebtedness itself. Warrants which there is money in the treasury to pay are not in any sense an. indebtedness of the state. For this reason I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority that, until the money realized from the sale of the bonds had been actually applied upon the warrants for the payment of which such money had been placed in the treasury, such warrants, as well as the bonds, would be an indebtedness of the state, or even evidence of such indebtedness. That the legislature has the authority to authorize a change in the form of the indebtedness of the state is beyond question, and, in my opinion, the statute in question did no more.