State ex rel. Stanley v. Robb

• Decision Date: 21 March 1936
• Docket Number: 33000.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. STANLEY, Co. Atty., et al. v. ROBB, State Auditor.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

55 P.2d 815

143 Kan. 527

STATE ex rel. STANLEY, Co. Atty., et al. v. ROBB, State Auditor.

No. 33000.

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 21, 1936

Syllabus by the Court.

Amount of bonds which county could issue for relief of poor and unemployed held not limited by statutory county debt limitation (Rev.St.1923, 10--301; Laws 1935, c. 192; Const art. 7, § 4).

The amount of bonds a county may issue under chapter 192, Laws of 1935, is not limited by R.S. 10--301.

Original proceeding in mandamus by the State, on the relation of Arthur J. Stanley, Jr., as Attorney of Wyandotte County, and another, against George Robb, as State Auditor.

Writ allowed.

Arthur J. Stanley, Jr., George H. West, Russell C. Hardy, and Alton H. Skinner, all of Kansas City, for plaintiffs.

W. B Crowther, of Topeka, for State Tax Commission, amicus curiae.

Chester Stevens and W. D. Kimble, both of Independence, amici curiae.

Clarence V. Beck, Atty. Gen., and Theo. F. Varner, Asst. Atty. Gen for defendant.

HARVEY Justice.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus seeking to direct the state auditor to register an issue of Wyandotte county poor relief bonds dated March 1, 1936, in the sum of $250,000. Defendant has declined to register the bonds, for the reason that, if issued, the bonded debt of Wyandotte county would exceed the limitation prescribed by R.S.10--301. The legal question is whether this last-mentioned section applies to the bonds the county seeks to have registered. The bonds in question have been issued under chapter 192, Laws of 1935 the title of which reads: "An Act relating to the public relief and assistance to the poor and unemployed; authorizing the levying of taxes and the issuance of bonds by the counties for the relief of the poor and unemployed, imposing certain conditions and restrictions, and providing certain procedure."

The first section of the act authorizes a board of county commissioners, under certain circumstances, to levy an additional tax for the relief of the poor, but, since no tax question is raised here, we need not further notice this section. The pertinent portion of the second section of the act reads: "That if at any time prior to March 1, 1937, it appears to the board of county commissioners that additional revenue will be needed for the relief of the poor and destitute, the board of county commissioners shall have the power to issue bonds to provide funds for the relief of the poor and destitute in amounts for each year as follows: An amount in 1935 not exceeding 1/3 of 1 percent, in 1936 an amount not exceeding 1/2 of 1 percent., in 1937 an amount not exceeding 1/10 of 1 percent. of the assessed valuation of the county in the previous year: Provided, That the proposal to issue bonds shall have been submitted to the state tax commission and by the state tax commission approved. *** The money derived from the sale of such bonds shall be used only for the purposes as stated in section 3 of this act. The revenue derived from the sale of bonds in this act may be in addition to any amount provided for in the budget of the county."

The third section provides that moneys raised by the tax levy or a bond issue, provided for in the act, shall be kept in a separate fund to be known as "public assistance fund," and shall be used for the relief of the poor.

It is conceded that the proposal to issue the bonds was submitted to the state tax commission and by it considered and approved; also that all other steps necessary to be taken under the act have been performed, and that the amount of the issue is within the limitations provided by the act under which the bonds are issued. The sole question presented is whether bonds issued under the act are to be counted or taken into consideration in determining the amount of bonds which may be issued by a county within the limitations prescribed by R.S.10--301, which reads: "Except for the refunding of outstanding debt, including outstanding bonds and matured coupons thereof, or judgment thereon, no bonds of any class or description shall hereafter be issued by any county, township, city, board of education or school district where the total bonded indebtedness of such county or township would thereby exceed one percent of the assessment for taxation, as shown by the last finding and determination by the proper board of equalization, or where the total bonded indebtedness of such city, school district or board of education would thereby exceed one and one-fifth percent of such assessment; but this restriction shall not apply to cities of the first class."

This statute was last revised and re-enacted in 1909 (section 2, c. 62, Laws 1909). In Arkansas City v. Turner, State Auditor, 116 Kan. 407, 226 P. 1009, it was held to have been superseded and repealed by R. S.10--303 in so far as applied to bonds issued by cities of the second and third class. In Board of Education v. Turner, Auditor, 116 Kan. 735, 229 P. 74, it was held to have been superseded and repealed by R.S.72-- 1820, to the extent of the repugnancy in the two acts, and in Woodson v. School District, 127 Kan. 651, 657, 274 P. 728, it was held to have been superseded by R.S. 72--2001, so far as it pertains to the limitation for bonded indebtedness of a common school district. So, at best, R.S.10-- 301, is but part effective. These decisions recognize and apply the rule that the latest legislation is controlling, in so far as it relates to the same subject.

Notwithstanding the broad language of R.S.10--301, there is ground for saying that the Legislature never intended it to apply to poor relief bonds issued by a county. We are told that at the time of the enactment of that statute there had been no statute enacted in this state authorizing a county to issue poor relief bonds: indeed, that there was no such statute until 1933. There is room for the argument that the Legislature, in enacting it, had in mind only the kinds and classes of bonds then known to our law, and that it could not be said to have intended the statute to apply to a kind or class of bonds then unknown. In addition to what may be said to be the common understanding relating to legislative intent, as shown by statutory enactment, there is some authority for this view. In State v. Kansas City, 83 Kan. 431, 433, 111 P. 493, 494, speaking of section 6, chapter 62, Laws of 1909, the court said: "Obviously the Legislature had no intention of applying the limitation to any class of bonds that had previously been exempt from its operation," citing authorities.

Prior to 1933 the expenses of the poor relief in a county were paid by moneys derived from taxation. If that were insufficient warrants were issued, later paid by moneys raised by taxation, or by bonds authorized to be issued to fund outstanding obligations of a county. In 1933 the Legislature, by a series of acts, undertook to put the financial affairs of counties and other subdivisions of the state on a better financial basis. It enacted the "cash basis law" (chapter 319, Laws 1933), by which such governmental units were required to balance their respective accounts and prohibited from overdrawing them, and a new "budget act" (chapter 316, Laws 1933), requiring all anticipated expenditures to be classified in advance and means of payment prescribed. Realizing these statutes might handicap a county in the relief of the poor, the number of which had increased greatly by reason of severe general financial depression, the Legislature authorized poor relief bonds to be issued under certain circumstances (chapter 193, Laws 1933), and at the special session of the Legislature...