Boswell v. State, Case Number: 27935
Decision Date | 21 December 1937 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 27935 |
Parties | BOSWELL v. STATE et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 STATES - HIGHWAYS - Act Authorizing Issuance and Sale of Highway Revenue Anticipation Notes to Amount of $35,000,000 Held Unconstitutional.
Article 10, chapter 50, Session Laws 1937 (Senate Bill No. 205), authorizing the State Highway Commission to borrow money for the purpose of constructing roads and bridges and to issue and sell highway revenue anticipation notes in an aggregate amount not to exceed $35,000,000, and irrevocably pledging 40 per cent. of the three cents per gallon excise tax on gasoline referred to in section 2, chapter 126, Session Laws 1933, to the payment of the principal and interest of said notes as they become due, also conditionally pledging a portion of the motor vehicle registration and license taxes, contravenes the constitutional debt limit for the state as fixed by the provisions of sections 23, 24, and 25, article 10, of the Constitution and is unconstitutional and invalid in so far as it authorizes the issuance of said notes and diverts the said taxes therein specified into a separate fund to pay the same.
Original proceeding by A.V. Boswell against the State et al. to test validity of certain provisions of article 10, chapter 50, Session Laws 1937 (Senate Bill No. 205), and for an injunction enjoining the issuance of Highway Revenue Anticipation Notes contemplated by said act. Writ granted.
L.V. Orton, C.E. Mitchell, and Robert Burns, for plaintiff, A.V. Boswell.
Hugh M. Bland, for intervener, Dick Crookham.
C.C. Hatchett, pro se, intervener.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Randell S. Cobb, Ass't Atty. Gen., John H. Miley, Special Atty., Thos. H. Owen, Allen G. Nichols, Wm. O. Coe, Don Welch, Peyton Ford, and William H. Miley, for defendants.
¶1 The Sixteenth Oklahoma Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 205, article 10, chapter 50, Session Laws 1937, which by its terms and provisions authorized the State Highway Commission to issue and sell highway revenue anticipation notes in an amount not to exceed $35,000,000 to procure funds for "constructing and reconstructing roads and bridges * * * upon the state highway system of the state." Forty per centum of the three cents per gallon excise tax levied by section 2, chap,. 126, Session Laws 1933, and conditionally a portion of the motor vehicle registration and license tax revenue, was diverted into a special fund and "irrevocably" pledged to the payment of said notes. The act was not submitted to the people for approval.
¶2 Plaintiff, A.V. Boswell, and interveners, Dick Crookham and C.C. Hatchett, have, in this original action, attacked the constitutionality of the act. The defendants are the State Highway Commissioners, State Auditor, and State Treasurer. The prayer of the petition is for an injunction to enjoin the issuance and sale of the notes.
¶3 The principal ground of attack is that the act is violative of the provisions of the Constitution which fix the "debt limit" of the state.
¶4 Various constitutional provisions are referred to in the briefs, but we will mention only those provisions which we deem to be controlling of the controversy. Section 23, article 10, of the Constitution provides:
"The state may, to meet casual deficits or failures in revenues, or for expenses not provided for, contract debts; but such debts, direct and contingent, singly or in the aggregate, shall not, at any time, exceed four hundred thousand dollars, and the moneys arising from the loans creating such debts shall be applied to the purpose for which they were obtained or to repay the debts so contracted, and to no other purpose whatever."
¶5 Section 24, article 10, of the Constitution provides:
"In addition to the above limited power to contract debts, the state may contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection or to defend the state in war; but the moneys arising from the contracting of such debts shall be applied to the purpose for which it was raised, or to repay such debts, and to no other purpose whatsoever."
¶6 Section 25, article 10, of the Constitution provides:
¶7 It is conceded that the control of the fiscal affairs of the state is a legislative function and that the power of the Legislature in the exercise of such control is plenary, subject only to constitutional restrictions and the power of the people to legislate by means of the initiative and referendum. This court is not concerned with the wisdom or expediency of the act. It is our sole function to determine whether or not the act contravenes the provisions of the Constitution.
¶8 The question presented to this court is, Does Senate Bill No. 205 authorize the creation of a debt against the state within the meaning of that term as used in the constitutional provisions?
¶9 The object of construction, applied to a Constitution, is to give effect to the intent of its framers, and of the people in adopting it. The intent is to be found in the instrument itself; and when the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the courts, in construing it, are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument. Words must be given their ordinary and natural meaning.
¶10 Mr. Cooley, in his work on Constitutional Limitations, page 89, says:
¶11 If we are to give the words used their natural and ordinary meaning, we refer to Webster's New International Dictionary, where "debt" is defined as:
"That which is due from one person to another, whether money, goods, or services; that which one person is bound to pay to another, or to perform for his benefit; thing owed; obligation; liability."
¶12 Therefore, if we give the word "debt" its plain and ordinary meaning, we believe no one can doubt that the act in question authorizes the creation of a state debt. The bill provides for the issuance of notes, and it is common knowledge that a note is the evidence of a debt. As ordinarily understood, it is given for no other purpose. The notes bear interest. They mature at definite dates. They are promises to pay money. These are the attributes of debt.
¶13 We must, therefore, inevitably conclude that a "debt," within the prohibition of the above-quoted constitutional provisions, will be incurred under this act unless for some well-defined reason said constitutional provisions are otherwise inapplicable.
¶14 It is insisted by defendants that these constitutional provisions apply only to a debt where a direct property tax is levied for its payment, and that they do not apply where the full faith and credit of the state is not pledged, and that in said act it is provided that only a portion of the excise tax on gasoline and certain license taxes are pledged and paid into a special liquidating fund, and therefore the debt limitation provisions of the Constitution are not violated.
¶15 By section 12 of the act under consideration, it is provided that, in order to obtain funds to pay the principal and interest of the notes issued under authority of said act, 40 per centum of the three cents of the gasoline excise tax referred to in section 2, chapter 126, Session Laws 1933, shall be apportioned and credited to a special fund in the office of the State Treasurer, to be known as "State Highway Commission Note Fund of 1937", and that the principal and interest of said notes shall be payable solely from said fund and from the revenue deposited therein as therein provided, and said portion of said excise tax on gasoline is irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal and interest of said notes. Conditionally, a portion of the motor vehicle registration and license tax revenue was pledged. Other provisions not deemed material to a determination of the question involved herein are contained in said section. By section 4 of the act under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gruen v. State Tax Commission
... ... case, we deem it proper to refer to certain principles which ... must be ... 'This ... Court has held a number of times that obligations of the same ... character as these bonds, ... Barrett, 373 ... Ill. 393, 26 N.E. 478; and Boswell v. State, 181 ... Okl. 435, 74 P.2d 940 ... It is ... ...
-
Lyons v. Bottolfsen
... ... Suit to ... restrain purchase by the state of a privately owned toll ... bridge, claiming statute and ... taxes, is no valid objection in this case, because: ... (1) The ... plaintiff shows no ... P.2d ... 325, and Boswell v. State, 181 Okla. 435, 74 P.2d ... The ... ...
-
Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority, Application of
... ... Million Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority State Highway ... Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series ... " or "profit producing"; 4) Oklahoma's statutory and case law which clearly recognizes a distinction ... Page 762 ... v. STATE ex rel. STATE BD. OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, BOSWELL v. STATE; INDIANA NAT'L BANK v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF ... ...
-
Fent v. OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVE. AUTH.
... ... and wife, as resident taxpayers and voters of the State of Oklahoma, Petitioners, ... OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT ... statement made only last year by this Court in a case concerning the approval of bonds proposed to be issued by ... dissenting) , relying on Boswell v. State, 181 Okla. 435, 74 P.2d 940, 942 (1937). Further, ... to be repaid via legislative appropriations over a number of years unless the voters of Oklahoma have approved the ... ...