State v. Allen

• Decision Date: 01 July 1904
• Citation: 82 S.W. 103,183 Mo. 283
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CITY OF COLUMBIA v. ALLEN, State Auditor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

82 S.W. 103

183 Mo. 283

STATE ex rel. CITY OF COLUMBIA v. ALLEN, State Auditor.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July 1, 1904.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — PROPOSITION TO VOTERS — SUFFICIENCY — STATUTE — RATE OF TAXATION — SINKING FUND.

1. Under the direct provisions of Const. art. 10, § 12a, adopted in November, 1902, cities of less than 30,000 and more than 2,000 inhabitants, with the assent of two-thirds of the qualified

voters voting at an election, are expressly authorized to become indebted to a larger amount than specified in Const. art. 10, § 12, not exceeding an additional 5 per cent. of the value of taxable property therein, for the purpose of purchasing or constructing waterworks and electric or other lighting plants, to be owned exclusively by the people.

2. Const. art. 10, § 12a, adopted in November, 1902, expressly authorizing cities of less than 30,000 and more than 2,000 inhabitants to purchase or construct waterworks and electric or other lighting plants, with the assent of the voters thereof, does not restrict such cities to one of two alternatives, requiring them to submit to the voters either a proposition to incur indebtedness to build and construct a new system, or a proposition simply to buy an existing one; and hence a proposition submitted to the voters to incur an indebtedness to acquire by purchase and construction a waterworks and electric light plant, to be owned exclusively by the city, is not objectionable, especially in view of Act March 23, 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 96), providing that the city council of any city shall have power to erect or acquire, by "purchase or otherwise," waterworks, etc., showing that the Legislature has so construed the constitutional amendment.

3. Under Const. art. 10, § 12, providing that a city incurring an indebtedness for the purchase or construction of public utilities, before or at the time of doing so, shall provide for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay interest as it falls due, and also to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal within 20 years from the time of contracting the indebtedness, an objection to the validity of the action of a city in voting to incur such indebtedness, that the city council, after the voters had authorized the indebtedness, had provided for the execution of bonds, and also for the levy and collection of an annual tax of 35 cents on the $100 valuation, or so much thereof as might be necessary, and had not provided for payment of interest and creation of a sinking fund, and that the rate was uncertain, based on the mere possibility that the assessed valuation might decrease, is untenable.

4. Under Const. art. 10, § 12a, authorizing cities to become indebted, with the consent of the voters, for the purpose of purchasing or constructing public utilities, it is not necessary for the voters to vote on the rate of the tax levy to meet the indebtedness, but it is the duty of the council, under the direct provisions of section 12, to fix a levy sufficient to meet the interest, and create a sinking fund for the payment of the principal within 20 years from the time of contracting the indebtedness.

In Banc. Mandamus by the state, on the relation of the city of Columbia, against Albert O. Allen, State Auditor, to require him to register bonds issued by the city. Writ granted.

W. H. Rothwell and E. W. Hinton, for relator. The Attorney General and Sam B. Jeffries, for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Relator in this cause is a city of the third class, organized under the general laws. It has a population of about 6,000, and the assessed valuation of the taxable property therein, according to the last previous assessment for state and county purposes, was $2,265,045. Its present indebtedness is $38,500, exclusive of the bond issue in controversy. For some years past, water and light for both public and private consumers have been furnished by a private plant owned by the Columbia Water & Light Company. The voters having declared their preference for municipal ownership, the city obtained an option for the purchase of the old plant at $67,500. The plant is not adequate for the needs of the city, and hence the council did not desire to purchase it, unless funds were provided for the construction of a new reservoir and pumping station, and the establishment of a new source of water supply. In other words, the city desired to buy the old plant, and use it, so far as possible, in making a new system. In order to carry out this plan, an ordinance was regularly passed by the city council, and approved by the mayor, calling a special election to be held on February 23, 1904, for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the qualified voters, viz.: "For the city of Columbia to incur an indebtedness of one hundred thousand dollars, and issue bonds as provided by law for the purpose of acquiring by purchase and construction a waterworks and electric light plant to be owned exclusively by the city, to supply the city and all persons, firms and corporations therein with water and light, it being proposed to apply sixty-seven thousand five hundred and six dollars and ninety-two cents ($67,506.92) for the purchase of the...