Butler v. City of Lewiston

• Citation: 11 Idaho 393,83 P. 234
• Parties: BUTLER v. CITY OF LEWISTON
• Decision Date: 07 November 1905
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

83 P. 234

11 Idaho 393

BUTLER v. CITY OF LEWISTON

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 7, 1905

CITY OF LEWISTON-VALIDITY OF SPECIAL CHARTER-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-TITLE OF ACT-AMENDMENT OF CHARTER-ISSUANCE OF BONDS.

1. Under a special charter, the city of Lewiston is a legal municipal corporation of the state.

2. The amendment of the special charter of the city of Lewiston by act approved March 9, 1903 (Sess. Laws 1903, p. 105), held constitutional and valid.

3. The title to said act is sufficient and does not contravene the provisions of section 19, article 3 of the state constitution.

4. Under the provisions of the constitution the legislature has the power to amend the charter of the city of Lewiston in matters germane to the object and purposes of said charter.

5. Under the provisions of section 2, article 21 of the state constitution, all laws not repugnant to the constitution are continued in force until they expire by their own limitation or are altered or repealed by the legislature. That provision applies to all laws, special as well as general, continued in force after the date of the adoption of the constitution, and the word "altered" as used in said section means to make different without destroying identity, to vary without entire change.

6. The title to said act approved March 9, 1903, is sufficiently comprehensive to include all provisions germane to the city charter.

7. The existing city governments under special charters, at the date of the adoption of our constitution, were not abolished by the provisions of section 1 of article 12 of the constitution, but were continued in force, and by the provisions of section 2, article 11 of the constitution, the power of the legislature to grant, extend change or amend charters of incorporation by special laws was restricted to such municipal, charitable, educational, penal or reformatory corporations as are or may be under the control of the state.

8. By the proviso of section 3, article 8 of the state constitution, the provisions of that section are not applicable to the ordinary and necessary expenses of the city authorized by the general laws of the state.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of Nez Perce County. Honorable Edgar C. Steele, Judge.

Action to restrain the issuance of certain city bonds. Judgment for the city. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

R. E McFarland, for Appellant, cites no authorities not cited in the opinion.

Eugene A. Cox, for Respondent.

The first question presented by appellant is: Is the said defendant, the city of Lewiston, a legal municipal corporation of the state of Idaho? This is sufficiently answered by this court in the case of Wiggin v. City of Lewiston, 8 Idaho 527, 69 P. 286. Appellant next presents the question: Is that certain special act of the legislature of the state of Idaho known as House Bill No. 104, amending the charter of said city of Lewiston, approved March 9, 1903, and found on page 105 of the Session Acts of the state of Idaho of 1903, unconstitutional or void? The act referred to is an amendment of the act passed upon by this court in the case of Wiggin v. City of Lewiston, cited above. In that case the court held that the city of Lewiston was legally incorporated by special act, and that its charter might be amended by special act. No question is raised as to the regularity of the passage of the act of 1903; and the court having already determined the authority of the legislature to enact laws of this kind, it will be assumed, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, that the law was duly and regularly passed. (Mechem on Public Officers, par. 579.) Appellant asks: Does said act contravene or violate the provisions of section 19, article 3, of the constitution of the state of Idaho by reason of its having twenty subjects instead of one? Provisions of an act may be numerous, but however numerous, if they can be, by fair intendment, considered as falling within the subject matter of the legislation, or necessary as ends and means to the attainment of the subject, the act will not conflict with the constitution. (Pioneer Irr. Dist v. Bradley, 8 Idaho 310, 101 Am. St. Rep. 201, 68 P. 295, citing State v. Doherty, 3 Idaho 384, 29 P. 855.) Appellant's fifth question is: Does said special act contravene or violate section 1 of article 12 of the constitution of the state of Idaho? All cities existing in Idaho prior to the adoption of the constitution were existing under special laws. This section did not abolish all the then existing cities. It simply supplements section 2 of article 11. Appellant's sixth query is: Does section 3 of article 8 of the constitution of the state of Idaho prohibit the issuance of bonds to take up outstanding warrant indebtedness of the city of Lewiston incurred for current pay of officers and municipal expenses of the city? Section 3, to which appellant refers, contains a complete answer to his question. (Miller v. School Dist., 5 Wyo. 217, 39 P. 879; Palmer v. City of Helena, 19 Mont. 61, 47 P. 209; City of Los Angeles v. Teed, 112 Cal. 319, 44 P. 580; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lyon Co., 44 F. 329; Maish v. Arizona Territory, 164 U.S. 599, 17 S.Ct. 193, 41 L.Ed. 567; Hainer's Modern Law of Municipal Securities, par. 297; Ball v. Bannock Co., 5 Idaho 603, 51 P. 454; Simonton on Municipal Bonds, pp. 67-171; Bannock Co. v. Bunting, 4 Idaho 156, 37 P. 277; Dunbar v. Canyon Co., 5 Idaho 407, 49 P. 409.)

SULLIVAN, J. Stockslager, C. J., concurs, Ailshie, J., concurs in the conclusion.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion.

SULLIVAN, J.

This action involves the legality of the proposed issue of bonds by the city of Lewiston to pay the warrant indebtedness of the city, amounting to $ 62,500. Said indebtedness accrued on account of salaries of city officers employees and other municipal expenses, excepting about $ 10,000 thereof, which was the amount of judgment obtained against said city. The cause was heard in the court below upon stipulated facts, and judgment was entered for the respondent city upon all of the points and questions raised by the facts. This appeal is from the judgment.

The questions submitted to the court below involve fifteen or more points, the first of which is whether the city of Lewiston is a legally organized municipal corporation of the state. That city existed under special charter granted by an act of the legislature of Washington Territory, approved January 15, 1863. Its corporate existence antedates the creation of the territory of Idaho by nearly three months, as Idaho Territory was organized by act of Congress, approved March 3, 1863. In Wiggin v. Lewiston, 8 Idaho 527, 69 P. 286, this court, in effect, held that the city of Lewiston existed under a special and local law and that such law was not in conflict with the provisions of section 19 of article 3 of the state constitution, which prohibits local or special legislation upon the several subjects therein enumerated. As bearing upon this question, see In re Ridenbaugh, 5 Idaho 371, 49 P. 12. The act granting a special charter to the city of Lewiston is not repugnant to any of the provisions of the state constitution. Section 2 of article 21 of that constitution is as follows: "All laws now in force in the territory of Idaho which are not repugnant to this constitution shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation or be altered or repealed by the legislature." Under the organic act of the territory, the enactment of special laws was not prohibited. The special act granting a charter to the city of Lewiston was continued in force by the provisions of the constitution. Under the provisions of said section 2, all acts not repugnant to the provisions of the constitution were continued in force until they expired by their own limitation, or were altered or repealed by the legislature. The act granting such charter has not been repealed, but has to some extent been altered by amendment. The question as to whether the legislature has the power to amend a special law will be discussed hereafter.

That part of said section 19 of article 3 involved in the question under consideration is as follows: "Sec. 19. The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: . . . . Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties, cities, townships, election districts or school districts, except as in this constitution otherwise provided." In connection with this section I will also here quote other sections bearing on this question. Section 2 of article 11 is as follows: "No charter of incorporation shall be granted, extended, changed or amended by special law, except for such municipal, charitable, educational, penal or reformatory corporations as are or may be, under the control of the state; but the legislature shall provide by general law for the organization of corporations hereafter to be created; provided, that any such general law shall be subject to future repeal or alteration by the legislature." Section 1 of article 12 is as follows: "The legislature shall provide by general laws for the incorporation, organization and classification of the cities and towns in proportion to the population, which laws may be altered, amended or repealed by the general laws. Cities and towns heretofore incorporated may become organized under such general laws, whenever a majority of the electors at a general election shall so determine, under such provision therefor as may be made by the legislature." I have no doubt that the legislature under the several provisions of our constitution above quoted has the authority to amend the special act granting a charter to the city of Lewiston as...