State v. Clausen
Decision Date | 11 September 1905 |
Citation | 82 P. 187,40 Wash. 95 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND v. CLAUSEN, State Auditor. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Application for a writ of mandamus by the state, on the relation of the city of Port Townsend, against C. W. Clausen, to compel respondent, as State Auditor, to issue a warrant on the State Treasurer to the relator. Denied.
Coleman & Ballinger and Vance & Mitchell, for plaintiff.
Frank C. Owings, for respondent.
This is an application for a writ of mandamus, instituted by the city of Port Townsend against C. W. Clausen, as State Auditor of the state of Washington, to compel him to draw a warrant upon the State Treasurer in payment of certain bonds purchased by the board of state land commissioners as an investment for the permanent school fund. That the nature of the controversy between the parties may be understood, it is necessary to make a brief statement of the facts out of which it arises. By the act of March 16, 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 177, c. 85), the Legislature of the state of Washington enacted that, whenever the city council or other corporate authority of a city shall deem it advisable to exercise the authority conferred upon cities in relation to waterworks, sewerage, and works for lighting, heating, fuel, and power purposes, or any or all of these, the city council, or other corporate authority, shall provide therefor by ordinance, in which a system or plan for the proposed work shall be adopted and the costs thereof estimated as near as may be, all of which shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the city or town at a general or special election for ratification or rejection. The act further provides that, if an indebtedness is to be created by the construction of the proposed public works, such indebtedness and the amount thereof shall likewise be stated in the ordinance and be assented to by the qualified voters of the municipality; a majority vote being necessary to adopt the proposed plan, while the authority to become indebted must be assented to by three-fifths of the qualified voters voting at such election. Two forms of indebtedness are provided for in the act. The one provides for a general indebtedness of the city, for which general municipal bonds may be issued to an amount not exceeding 5 per centum of the taxable property of the city as shown on the last assessment roll made for municipal purposes. The other form is best described in the words of the act itself namely: Laws 1901, p. 179, c. 85.
Acting under and in pursuance of this statute, the city of Port Townsend on February 16, 1904, duly passed an ordinance adopting a system and plan for supplying 'the city and its inhabitants, Ft. Warden, and Ft. Flagler, and other persons within and without the city with water, declaring the estimated cost thereof, and creating an indebtedness in the sum of $250,000.' The ordinance provided for the creation of a fund called therein the 'Olympic Gravity Waterworks Fund of Port Townsend,' into which it was proposed to pay 75 per centum of the gross receipts of the waterworks plant when completed, and such further sum as the city of Port Townsend should from time to time by ordinance transfer from the receipts of the plant or from its general revenues. For the purpose of acquiring funds to construct the works, it was proposed by the ordinance to issue bonds against, and payable solely out of, this special fund in the sum of $250,000, in denominations as fixed by the statute, and payable at the call of the city treasurer, the same to bear interest not to exceed 6 per centum per annum, payable semiannually; such bonds to be sold in such manner and at such rate of interest, not exceeding 6 per centum, as the city council should deem to the best interest of the city. In short, it was the purpose of the city authorities to provide for the construction of a system of waterworks for the benefit of the city, and to pay for the same out of a special fund derived from the revenues of the system when completed, in accordance with the terms of the statute above cited. The plan proposed by the ordinance was thereafter submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Port Townsend, and was ratified and adopted by the requisite majorities of the electors voting at such election. Bonds were subsequently issued pursuant to this authorization, and on March 20, 1905, the proper city authorities of the city of Port Townsend tendered the bonds to the state of Washington as an investment for its permanent school fund. The board of state land commissioners, in whom the statute vests the power to invest this fund, accepted the tender, and by resolution, as by law required, directed that the entire issue be purchased at the par value thereof, and that $150,000 of the amount of such purchase be taken and paid for immediately, and the balance within six months from that date. They city thereupon tendered the bonds to the State Auditor and demanded that he issue to it a warrant on the State Treasurer for the sum of $150,000. This Auditor refused to issue the warrant, and these proceedings were instituted to compel him so to do.
The Auditor, in his return to the alternative writ, bases his refusal to issue the warrant on several grounds; the principal one, and the only one we have found it necessary to consider, being that the attempted investment is in violation of article 16, § 5, of the state Constitution, which, as amended in 1894, provides that 'none of the permanent school funds of this state shall ever be loaned to private persons or corporations, but may be invested in national state, county, municipal, or school district bonds.' Before proceeding to a notice of the questions...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Clausen
-
State v. Conley
...... Board of Trustees v. Baker, 24 Ill.App. 231, and. Id., 34 Ill.App. 620; Lindsey v. Marshall, supra; State. v. Fitzpatrick, 5 Idaho, 499, 51 P. 112; State ex. rel. Hellar v. Young, 21 Wash. 391, 58 P. 220; State. ex rel. Townsend v. Clausen, 40 Wash. 95, 82 P. 187;. Industrial Commission v. Stong, supra; Parsons v. Diefendorf, 53 Idaho 219, 23 P.2d 236; Girard v. Diefendorf, 54 Idaho 467, 34 P.2d 48; Wiley v. Sparta, 154 Ga. 1, 114 S.E. 45, 25 A.L.R. 1342; People. v. Mitchell, supra. . . The. ......
-
State v. Conley, C. C. No. 574.
...State v. Fitzpatrick, 5 Idaho, 499, 51 P. 112; State ex rel. Hellar v. Young, 21 Wash. 391, 58 P. 220; State ex rel. Townsend v. Clausen, 40 Wash. 95, 82 P. 187; Industrial Commission v. Stong, supra; Parsons v. Diefendorf, 53 Idaho, 219, 23 P. (2d) 236; Girard v. Diefendorf, 54 Idaho, 467,......
-
Girard v. Diefendorf, 6116
... 34 P.2d 48 54 Idaho 467 FRANKLIN GIRARD, Secretary of State of the State of Idaho, Plaintiff, v. BEN DIEFENDORF, Commissioner of Public Investments of the State of Idaho, Defendant No. 6116 Supreme Court ... school district bond within the meaning of section 11,. article 9 of the Constitution. ( State v. Clausen, 40. Wash. 95, 82 P. 187.). . . HOLDEN,. J. Budge, C. J., and Givens, Morgan and Wernette, JJ.,. concur. . . . ......