Johns v. Wadsworth

• Decision Date: 06 July 1914
• Docket Number: 12018.
• Parties: JOHNS v. WADSWORTH, County Auditor, et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

141 P. 892

80 Wash. 352

JOHNS v. WADSWORTH, County Auditor, et al.

No. 12018.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

July 6, 1914

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford, Judge.

Action by P. H. Johns against J. L. Wadsworth, as County Auditor and Calvin J. Carr, as County Treasurer of Pierce County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Lorenzo Dow, W. W. Keyes, and Gordon & Easterday, all of Tacoma, for appellants.

T. L Stiles, of Tacoma, for respondent.

Post Avery & Higgins, of Spokane, amici curiae.

GOSE J.

This is an action by a resident and taxpayer of Pierce county to enjoin the issuance and payment of a county warrant. The facts are these: On the 18th day of July, 1913, the board of county commissioners of Pierce county, for the purpose of donating and giving to the Western Washington Fair Association the sum of $3,586.19, allowed a claim to the association for that amount, conformably to the provisions of the Code (Rem. & Bal. § 3024 et seq.). The association is a private corporation, organized for the purpose of holding a county fair and giving an exhibition of stock agricultural, and dairy products, including articles manufactured in Pierce county. It conducts the only agricultural fair in the county. A demurrer was sustained to an answer setting forth these facts. The defendants having announced that they did not desire to plead further, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal followed.

The Code (Rem. & Bal. § 3024) provides:

'Any agricultural fair association which has a corporate existence for the purpose and object of holding a fair and agricultural exhibition of stock, cereals and agricultural produce of all kinds, including dairy produce as well as arts and manufactures in any county, may apply to the board of county commissioners of such county for a grant to pay expenses and premiums awarded.'

Section 3025 provides that the members of the board of county commissioners shall be ex officio members of the county agricultural fair association, in all the counties where appropriations are made under the provisions of the act. Section 3026 provides that no more than one county agricultural fair shall be held in any county in any one year; that any association applying for the benefit of the appropriation must have a corporate existence; and that all buildings and structures erected with the funds appropriated shall become the property of the county making the appropriation. Of the applicable provisions of our Constitution, article 1, § 29, reads:

'The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.'

Article 8, § 6, prohibits counties from incurring indebtedness for any other than 'strictly' county purposes. Article 8, § 7, provides:

'No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money or property, or loan its money or credit, to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.'

The appellants, contending for a liberal construction of the Constitution so as to effectuate the intention of those who framed it and the people who adopted it, say: 'It must be conceded that the main and chief purpose of an appropriation made conformably to the statutes in question is to promote a public purpose.'

Counsel who have filed a brief an amici curiae argue that the purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit the county from aiding in any manner a purely private enterprise, and that a constitutional provision should be interpreted so as to further the known purposes for which it was adopted.

The section of the Constitution last quoted in most express terms prohibits a county from giving any money, property, or credit to, or in aid of, any corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm. If the framers of the Constitution had intended only to prohibit counties from giving money or loaning credit for other than corporate or public purposes, they would doubtless have said so in direct words. That agricultural fairs serve a good purpose is not questioned, but the Constitution makes no distinction between purposes, but directly and unequivocally prohibits all gifts of money, property, or credit to, or in aid of, any corporation, subject to the exception noted. In Rauch v. Chapman, 16 Wash. 568, 48 P. 253, 36 L. R. A. 407, 58 Am. St. Rep. 52, after referring to section 7, art. 8, of the Constitution, this court said that a recurrence to the history of the times will show that many municipalities had become bankrupt because of liabilities incurred in aid of railroads 'and various other public improvements which were deemed advantageous' at the time. In Rands v. Clarke County, 139 P. 1090, we said that the word 'corporation' in the article under review did not include the federal or state governments, or any of their members. In Wilkesbarre City Hospital v. County of Luzerne, 84 Pa. 55, it was held that an appropriation from county funds to a corporation organized to conduct a charitable hospital was in conflict with the Constitution of the state, which was similar to ours. The act there reviewed limited the appropriation to the support of such poor patients under treatment in the hospital as were unable to pay for their treatment. In that case the court said:

'A law enabling a private incorporated hospital to make requisitions upon a county, for the payment of its charges

...