State v. Burch

• Decision Date: 03 March 1922
• Docket Number: 16776.
• Citation: 204 P. 785,119 Wash. 1
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. THOMPSON, State Adjutant General, v. BURCH, City Auditor.

204 P. 785

119 Wash. 1

STATE ex rel. THOMPSON, State Adjutant General, v. BURCH, City Auditor.

No. 16776.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

March 3, 1922

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Joseph B. Lindsley Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of Maurice Thompson, Adjutant General, against Arthur W. Burch, as Auditor of the City of Spokane. From a judgment directing the issuance of the writ as prayed for, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. M. Geraghty and Alex M. Winston, both of Spokane for appellant.

Lindsay L. Thompson, of Olympia, C. A. Orndorff, of Spokane, and Nat U. Brown, of Olympia, for respondent.

MAIN J.

The purpose of this action was to require the auditor of the city of Spokane to issue a warrant drawn upon the treasury of the city for the sum of $7,500. To the complaint the auditor interposed a demurrer which was overruled. He thereupon elected not to plead further and that he would stand upon his demurrer. A judgment was entered directing that a writ of mandate issue requiring the auditor to issue a warrant as prayed for. From this judgment the auditor appeals.

The facts as stated in the complaint may be summarized as follows: The Adjutant General of the State of Washington, by virtue of his office, has and exercises control and management of the property of the state devoted to the use of its armed forces and--the armory of the city of Spokane is devoted to such use. By reason of the fact that the public welfare, peace, and security demand a larger number of troops in the city of Spokane than has heretofore been necessary, a substantial addition to the armory there located is necessary, and this will require the acquisition of real property adjacent to the present site. The city of Spokane by ordinance passed by the city council on May 16, 1921 appropriated the sum of $7,500 for the purpose of aiding in the purchase of land necessary to be acquired for making the improvement to the armory, and thereafter the appellant, the city auditor, refused to issue a warrant drawn upon the treasury for the sum named. It was to compel the issuance of this warrant that the action in mandamus was instituted. The appellant makes two points: First, that the Legislature has not authorized an appropriation for such an armory and that therefore the city is not authorized to issue the warrant; and, second, that even if an appropriation has been made by the Legislature, the city council cannot expend the funds of the city because the Legislature has no power to authorize such appropriation for the purpose mentioned.

The general appropriation act, Laws of 1921, p. 605, under the heading for the state military department, appropriations are made, one of which is 'Capitol Outlays, $151,000.' In section 2 of the appropriation act 'capital outlays' is defined:

'The first (outlay) relates to the purchase of property, buildings, land and equipment and the making of new improvements.'- Under this definition the military authorities of the state are vested with the discretion as to what buildings shall be added to by way of improvement or additional construction. Until the appropriation was authorized the city would have no power to purchase land for an addition to the armory. The appropriation being made for the military department, the Adjutant General by virtue of his office having exercise of the control and the management of the property of the state devoted to the use of its armed forces was authorized to make the addition to the armory. The question here is not whether the Adjutant General has the right to locate an armory not yet established and expend the funds therefor, but simply whether he is vested with the discretion to make an improvement or addition to an armory previously established by legislative enactment.

The second question is whether the city, even though authorized by the Legislature, has power to expend money for armory purposes. Under section 3831-5 of Remington's 1915 Code, and city or county in the state is authorized and empowered to expend money from their current expense fund in payment in whole or in part for an armory site whenever the Legislature of the state shall appropriate money for or authorize the construction of such armory within such city or county for use of the National Guard which may be stationed within such city or county. The Constitution of the state provides that the municipal authorities are vested only with authority to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes. The appellant argues that the construction of an armory is not a corporate purpose, and that therefore under the Constitution the proposed expenditure is unlawful. In Lancey v. King County, 15 Wash. 9, 45 P. 645, 34 L R. A. 817, an action was brought to restrain the county officers from proceeding under an act by the Legislature to condemn land for a right of way for a ship canal to connect Lakes Union and Washington in King county, with the waters of Puget Sound, which undertaking was projected by the federal government. It was contended in that case that the act was obnoxious to the provisions of section 6 of article 8 of the Constitution, which prohibits a county from incurring a debt for any other than a strictly county purpose. It was held that since the benefits resulting from the improvement would be largely local, notwithstanding the fact that the...