In re Menefee

• Decision Date: 24 October 1908
• Docket Number: Case Number: 399
• Citation: 97 P. 1014,1908 OK 203,22 Okla. 365
• Parties: In re MENEFEE, State Treasurer, et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1908 OK 203

97 P. 1014

22 Okla. 365

In re MENEFEE, State Treasurer, et al.

Case Number: 399

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 24, 1908

Syllabus

¶0 1. STATE FINANCE--Issue of Bonds--Limitations. Section 23, art. 10 (Bunn's Ed. sec. 289), of the Constitution, construed to mean in addition to the debts and liabilities of the territory of Oklahoma, or such debts and liabilities as are expressly assumed by the terms of the Constitution to meet casual deficits or failures in revenues, or expenses not provided for, that debts may be contracted by the state; but such debts, direct and contingent, singly or in the aggregate, shall not at any time exceed four hundred thousand dollars, it being also mandatory that the moneys arising from the sale of the refunding bonds shall be applied to repay such debts or liabilities, and to no other purpose whatever.

2. SAME--Refunding Bonds--Sanction by People. Bonds which are issued to fund a valid indebtedness neither create any debt nor increase the debt of the state, but merely change the form of an existing indebtedness, and the act of the Legislature providing for the issuance of such bonds may take effect without having been submitted at a general election to the people for their sanction.

3. STATUTES--Declaration of Emergency--Conclusiveness. The declaring of an emergency by the Legislature by expressing in the act that such measure is immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, when the same is not of the class specifically excepted from its application, is conclusive on the courts.

4. STATE FINANCE--Bonds--Certificates of Officers. The certificates of the Auditor and the Attorney General of the state, as provided for in section 29, art. 10 (Bunn's Ed. sec. 295), of the Constitution, need not be jointly executed, but are equally valid when separately signed by such officers.

5. STATUTES--Title of Act. An act entitled "An act providing for funding the outstanding warrants and other indebtedness of the state of Oklahoma, and the issuing of bonds therefor; providing for the payment of the same, and making an appropriation, and declaring an emergency," is not invalid as being in conflict with section 57, art. 5 (Bunn's Ed. sec. 130), of the Constitution.

Error from District Court, Logan County; A. H. Huston, Judge.

In the matter of J. A. Menefee, State Treasurer, and others. Submission to agreed case. From the judgment, the State Treasurer brings error. Affirmed.

On the 20th day of August, A. D. 1908, J. A. Menefee, State Treasurer, and the commissioners of the land office for the state of Oklahoma, submitted for decision of the district court of Logan county the following agreed statement of facts:

That on the 1st day of April, A. D. 1908, the state of Oklahoma issued its certain State funding bond, being in words and figures as follows:

"United Slates of America, State of Oklahoma. State Funding Bond. Series J.

"For value received the State of Oklahoma acknowledges itself to owe, and promises to pay to bearer, the sum of five hundred ($ 500.00) dollars, at the office of the State Treasurer, or at the fiscal agency of said state in New York City, on the first day of August, 1927, together with interest therein until paid at the rate of four per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually, on the first days of February and August of each year, as evidenced by coupons hereto attached.

"This bond is one of a series of like date, tenor and amount, issued for the purpose of obtaining money for the outstanding indebtedness of said state under authority of an act of Legislature, entitled 'An act providing for funding the outstanding warrants and other indebtedness of the state of Oklahoma, and the issuing of bonds therefor, providing for the payment of the same, and making an appropriation therefor, and declaring an emergency,' effective March 6, 1908.

"It is hereby certified and recited that all acts, conditions and things precedent to and in the issuing of said bonds have been properly done and performed as required by law.

"In witness whereof, the Governor, State Treasurer, and Secretary of State have executed and signed this bond under the great seal of said state and duly issued the same this first day of April, 1908."

Said bond was duly executed by the Governor, State Treasurer and Secretary of State, and certified to by the State Auditor and the Attorney General. The certificate of the Attorney General is as follows:

"I the undersigned Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma, hereby certify that the within bond has been regularly issued and registered pursuant to the law and within the debt limit and in accordance with the act entitled, 'An act providing for funding the outstanding warrants and other indebtedness of the state of Oklahoma, and the issuing of bonds therefor, providing for the payment of the same and making an appropriation, and declaring an emergency,' approved March 6, 1908 (Laws 1907-08, p. 155. c. 7). and with the Constitutional laws of the state of Oklahoma."

The certificate of the Auditor as amended is substantially the same as that of the Attorney General. Interest-bearing coupons were attached to said bond, duly signed by the State Treasurer. Under the terms of said bond and coupons the same are to be paid at the office of the State Treasurer or at the fiscal agency of said state in New York City on the 1st of August, 1927, together with interest, etc., at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually, on the 1st days of February and August of each year; said bond being one of a series of bonds issued on said date, maturing at the eleventh year after said 1st day of April, 1908, and then for each year thereafter for 10 years. It is claimed by the said commissioners of the school land office that the semiannual interest on said bond and said bonds is now due, but said Treasurer refuses and fails to pay same for the following reasons: That said bonds were issued under and in pursuance of House Bill 175 (Laws 1907-08, p. 155 c. 7), approved March 6, 1908; that there is a controversy between the said parties as to whether the state of Oklahoma had authority to issue said bonds and thereby fund the indebtedness named in said law; that section 4 of article 1 of the Constitution provides that the debts and liabilities of the territory of Oklahoma were assumed and shall be paid by the state of Oklahoma, but that said article did not make provision for the issuance of bonds for that purpose; that there is no showing on said bond as to whether or not any referendum petition was filed asking for said House Bill 175 to be submitted to a vote of the people; that said act (House Bill 175) included the funding of territorial and state obligations of the state and territory of Oklahoma, and there is a controversy as to whether or not the act is valid under section 57 of article 5 of said Constitution, providing that every act shall have but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title. In so far as territorial debts of the territory of Oklahoma are mentioned as the subject of section 4, art. 1, while state debts are provided for in sections 23, 24 and 25, art. 10, of the Constitution, and in case the Constitution of said state provides that territorial debts be the subject of one provision, and state debts the subject of another provision, there is a controversy as to whether the act is void in embracing more than one subject under section 57, art. 5, thereof.

Further, there is a controversy, between the parties as to whether there is any authority in the Constitution for issuing bonds to fund state debts, for the reason that the only provisions of the Constitution as to state debts are sections 23, 24, and 25 of article 10 thereof; that by the provisions of section 23 bonds may be issued to meet cash deficits or failures in revenue; that section 24 of article 10 of the Constitution permits the contracting of debts for the suppression of insurrection; that section 25 of article 10 requires every other debt to be incurred by law passed in a certain manner provided therein; and that the said law mentioned should not take effect until it is voted upon at a general election, and there is a controversy between the parties as to whether the act in question (House Bill 175) is required to be voted on at a general election before the same becomes effective. Further, that the said bond is dated the 1st day of April, 1908; that said act (House Bill 175) was passed on the 6th day of March, and there is a controversy between the parties as to whether there was an emergency that justified the provision putting said law in effect upon its passage and approval, in accordance with section 58 of article 5 of the Constitution of the state. Further, that there is a controversy as to whether the certificates attached to the bond and endorsed thereon comply with section 29, art. 10, of the Constitution. because it is contended that said section requires a joint certificate signed by the Attorney General and Auditor to the effect that the bond is issued in pursuance of law and within the debt limit, whereas it is contended that the Auditor's certificate does not cover this matter, and that it does not comply with the law because it is not a joint certificate signed by both the Attorney General and Auditor, as shown by the exhibit hereto. Further, that there is a controversy! as to whether section 2 of the funding act, being House Bill 175, approved March 6, 1908, makes it possible to determine when the bonds shall become due. Whereupon all the parties prayed a decision of the court upon all of said bonds, not omitting any of them, all the parties desiring to do whatever is required of them by law, but being in doubt as to what their legal duties and obligations are thereunder. Accompanying the agreed case was the affidavit of C. N. Haskell, J. A. Menefee, and Chas. West, wherein they each deposed that there was an...