*1 145 TERM, 1913.—You. XL. Indebtedness. Application In re of State Issue Bonds Bund to to months in this within six in error court proceeding his menee of. complained or final order judgment from the rendition of the court, it been determined of this .has By previous decisions to present trial is unnecessary for that where motion new in the petition complained the matters this court review thereon by and decision motion error, filing the time within purpose extending court is ineffectual for the to run from begins an and the time perfect appeal; which to not from the from, judgment appealed rendition of Hoss, v. order the motion new trial. Manes overruling 698; Davis, 32 122 28 114 Pac. v. Healy Okla. Okla. Pac. 157.
That a motion for new trial is
to enable
unnecessary
trial
court to review a
court
judgment
upon
rendered
statement of facts was settled
agreed
by Board
Co. Com.
al.,
Co. v. Porter et
19 Okla.
In re OF TO APPLICATION STATE TO ISSUE BONDS
FUND INDEBTEDNESS. Opinion 5663. No. Filed 1913. November
(136 1104.) Pac. Subsequent Appeal. APPEAL AND ERROR —Law of the Decisions of law involved 1. Case— appellate upon questions courts of this case, binding, on lower court, appellate well, subsequent on court as but in case of a appeal. SAME. applied 2. No rule will different construction to a proceeding procure under the statute to funding the issuance of SUPREME COURT OE OKLAHOMA.
In re Bonds Bund Indebtedness. State to Issue thereto, is- bonds, protest where a filed remonstrance ordinary framed, applied sues thus from that eases. Repeal—Effect Pending Action. The omission 3. STATUTES — 381, Compiled 1909, from Revised Laws of sections pending un- *2 operate proceeding Laws abate a of 1910 does prior Revised Laws der said sections to the date when said 1910 went into effect. Court.) (Syllabus by the dissenting.
Robertson, Special Justice, County; Court, District Oklahoma Error from Carney, J%idge. John J. its Gov- State, through the and
Application by acting the ernor, Treasurer, to determine State, Secretary and State indebted- character, outstanding its existence, and amount of same, ness, certain citizens to refund the and and to issue bonds Judg- of the bonds. file a the issuance appear protest against and issue, pro- and certain was the bond approving entered ment testants error. Affirmed. bring
See,
also, 33
C. W. Stringer, plaintiffs for error. Gen., Charles for defendant in error. West, Atty. CAMPBELL, insti Special proceeding This is a Justice. Governor, tuted in the district court of county, by Oklahoma State, Secretary Treasurer, purpose and State existence, character, determining legal and amount of the outstanding warrant indebtedness of the state, causing and court, statement upon thereof to be entered the records of the and to authorize and direct the issuance of funding bonds state, inclusive, the provisions under of sections 372 to Compiled 1909. The was filed and proceeding Laws notice statute, given required by and certain citizens of the state appeared protests against and filed the issuance of the bonds. court, The trial originally treating protests as demurrers to application petition, sustained the same. From the judg ment, court, an taken appeal was to this and here the judgment of the trial court sustaining demurrers reversed, was XL. 1913.—You.
Opinion Court. opinion proceedings; for further remanded cause 797, 127 1065. in 33 Pac. reported Okla. appeal former being again heard court remanded, case was district After the support matter, introduced being evidence considered the direct duly entered, was Judgment application petition. $2,907,122.19. the sum of bonds in fundings the issuance ing overruled, the court A filed and motion for new trial was fil appeal by parties here on again brought case in the trial court. protests one of remonstrances ing court, in the trial the officers At the last hearing General, the Attorney per application through making amend schedule application striking mitted to certain ag warrants submitted warrants originally funding $34,042.32, certain said schedule gregating adding listed, $45,214.82, originally amounting other warrants certain accrued upon interest had warrants together listed in the filed. tried originally case was court cer upon agreed the lower statement of facts court, open tain from all of evidence introduced which the *3 trial court found total amount of indebt that the outstanding amount, edness for the fiscal year ending would June October, day on the 1st over and above on the funds same, $2,907,122.19. the pay to to hand outset, It becomes at the important, just determine how far appeal the decision of this case on is to be controlled appeal. on previous the decision the convenience,
Eor shall refer to the plaintiffs we in erról- as protestants. the
The contention is made decision the on the former not appeal based, is on the binding now court. This contention is in the part, upon that the argument presents, case the not ele- litigated ments of but is rights, merely an ex parte proceeding on part the acting by the certain of officers, its duty that the of the court is largely ministerial, some having the relation to of an auditor duty of the claims to be sought position, This in funded. our is judgment, not sound.
true, the arose controversy upon the application of the state for OF COURT OKLAHOMA. Indebtedness. Issue Bonds Bund
In re of State to as a indebtedness basis outstanding the determination its cancel the warrants. up to take the bonds issuing required served, toor answer personally to be required by one was law No in procedure any way, against application, protest time fixed by within -the law and if no one had appeared notice, it not been tech- would have publication stated case, been, default, would have nical and the proceeding persons ex But in- parte hearing. in the nature an largely statute, present. to be under right, terested have persons that interested not terms express statute does say in opposition form by any pleading to be heard right how- sought. protestants, as issuance the bonds the trial court ever, appeared pleading, rightly, and filed their think, put passed the matters issue we entertained and it, in form proceeding, As both and sub- thereby. we view stance, by protestants the time such possessed, pleading filed, and elements of an the essential characteristics ordi- was a real parties; nary contending presented suit between contro- ac- importance, parties one of much versy, and well, to the before but whole state and to tually court, bonds funding for which the the holders warrants to be issued. sought
But, if it that the was ex granted proceeding .even parte contended, reason, its state, by officers, good fact all, at why application no reason doctrine suggested the “law of the case” should different therein from its controverted suit. No reason for ordinary law in those ex applying different matters parte rule upon by courts are sometimes called fiopronounce judg- contrary, in occurs to ment us. would seem of equal, On that, importance if where greater, the decisions and actions of ministerial or officers are required executive to be reviewed courts, of the courts judgment expressed upon regularity validity of such ministerial or executive de- *4 force, cisions and actions before in. finally such judgments, -when be final solemnly given, once to the conclusive same any so, that other is. If judgment extent this not a judg- 149 TERM, 1913.—You. XL.
Opinion Court. of the stated the character in matter of ment the lower court reversing proceedings conduct for the would furnish standard officers of remand, and the the trial before court after find would resort, after of last of the court procuring judgment action, right where themselves, in subseqeunt stages they started. appellate
It is the
rule of
state that the decisions
upon
courts
case
bind
questions
law involved
court,
on
court as
ing,
appellate
lower
but
well,
Atchison,
in case of
&
subsequent appeal.
Topeka
Santa
577;
Baker,
48,
Fe
Co. v.
130
Gas
Ry.
37
Pac.
Oklahoma
Okla.
758;
503,
&
21
Pac.
Co. v.
Okla.
96
Electric
Baumhoff,
Chicago„
523;
R. I.
Ry.
Broe,
& Pac.
Co.
23
396,
v.
100 Pac.
Hard
Okla.
Gillett,
665;
ing v.
25
107
199,
Okla.
Pac.
Bank
State
Water
801,
v.
Bank,
910;
loo
110
Citizens’ National
26 Okla.
Pac.
First
704,.
National Bank
v.
al.,
Claremore C. M.
et
Keys
27 Okla.
715;
113 Pac.
Harper
809,
29
Kelly,
v.
Okla.
It follows gross unless injustice manifest will result allowing former decision in this case to stand, decision, in far applicable so as it is to the questions raised on the present appeal, will treated as binding. The former decision 15, was handed down on November and we believe any lawyer, thereof, after an examination would justified in ad- vising his client that the warrants herein sought to be funded *5 OE OKLAHOMA.' COURT Bund Indebtedness. of Bonds to Issue to
In State re of investment, policy is not the and that it a safe .constitute necessary for contracted obligations, its just this to allow Con- dishonored. be any at time to expenses government, of necessary is a obligations state’s the integrity of fidence written, that the business from the opinion, conclusion think, is, we on that decision has, extent, acted some world to has or If concern person any inference. perfectly legitimate a needs, purchased for its current the state to extended credit the assurance that reliance the upon of warrants these obliga- of repudiation the permit would not of the state law overruling injured by tions, would be concern person case the exact con- law. such a fixed the the decision of “the law of for exception the the rule to verse fully stated, case,” recognize would We appear. the as above people the burden place upon to these bonds will the issue interest, to taxation. $3,000,000, paid of some Still shown, pay it in fact that the who must conceded, people is supplies this in services and equivalent sum have received its the busi- necessary to and conduct of actually the maintenance ness of which the state could government government —without officers, not be carried on at all. cared paid These warrants convicts, paid for clothing for food and and treatment These have to for from to things paid day insane. day, continue, if to organized government the business is there come times when stability pur- state credit will chase supplies procure the services necessary per- to their formance. We do not regard injus- "gross manifest tice to parties prosecuting appeal require them and their property and their posterity pay a share of the bur- den thus created. That in question warrants are evidence sound in obligations, every moral regard, is here. conceded foundation very morals, found good to correct would do violence legal interpretation, in case morals, conflict between law and require the former to yield the latter. The moral code foundation code, ideal proper system legal will never be reached until TERM, 1913.—Von. XL.
Opinion of the Court. moral in sound its every expression response the law finds principles. are, in these bonds persons the issuance of resisting the de- representatives of the citizens of sense, are not here alike. people
cision reached will affect We interpretation by unmindful of the vast of the correct importance law, see nothing courts the fundamental but we former makers safeguards decision does violence Constitution around the sought people to throw administration state as an indi- public affairs. Treating *6 vidual, is construction in the former required, by given the decision, existence, to meet the demands of its and necessary in no more. There is that that form opinion would nothing on the the part even excuse state’s execu- ministerial and the tive agents for exploitation people expenditures,, by consent, enterprise without their in money said' which interested, the to agents might conceive follow- by and ing interpretation we do mean to furnish such an excuse-
Seeing no reason in case depart this to from the rule- wise stated, construction we declare here that duty the court, in the disposing appeal, apply the to the law as laid? decision, down former so far as that decision adjudicates: the questions court. now before the In doing this, it necessary to reason again discuss the or the authorities majority the court was in controlled reaching the conclu sions set in opinion. forth the former is necessary, how ever, to the law as apply therein, stated and determine just far it how controls the in controversy present its state. It is note, interesting to since former the in appeal this case was decided, the practically question, same though in a arising little manner, different was before the Appeals Court of of the state of Kentucky Newman, in the case of Rhea v. 53 Ky. 604, 156 154, W. in a proceeding involving expenditure S. of moneys and same conclusion was reached in as former decision this court.
As has been said the former appeal, the protest filed the issuance of against the bonds was treated as a demurrer. OF COURT OKLAHOMA. Fund Indebtedness. Application of Bonds
In re State to Issue to been overruled have It was held that demurrer to whether inquire now pertinent trial court. It becomes re case was court, after in the trial proceedings not the laid compliance manded, were substantial judg court’s so, the trial court. If opinion this down v. & B. Co. be affirmed. G. to that extent must Okla. ment 758. 96 Pac. Okla. Baumhoff, court, the trial court order of pursuance of the law, under treated as sufficient petition evidence, stip- and the This support. and heard evidence its to sought ulations that the warrants parties, show rendered largely funded were for services by substitution of bonds ending year furnished the fiscal supplies during June actual against were issued said warrants have existing appropriations. Certain warrants were shown their been withdrawn from of doubt consideration because validity, right but as protestants to this action the every complain. court did not examine in detail warrant funded, to be introduced was proposed but evidence sufficient offered support that all finding judgment warrants ¡the valid, actual were legal representing obligations state. officers in proceedings arranging state’s
funding proceedings, requisite preliminaries preparing action, been regular court’s shown to have *7 supports law. compliance substantial The evidence re- petition of the in material allegations every and is sufficient to sustain the gard, judgment findings of trial court. paragraph syllabus first of of the opinion former
states the construction of given section the Constitution protestants on by relied as follows: 23, 10, “The limitations section art. Ann. Williams’ Okla., Const., not intended apply were to that class of pecun- out of the iary obligations arising ordinary necessary current the state expense maintaining government, and which were paid, in faith intended to be lawfully were good payable, revenues, current and other yearly out resources of the 153 1913.—You. XL. Opinion Court. in- obligations for the fiscal year within which such 797, Pac. curred.” (33 1065.) Okla. 127
It is in questiori clear that the warrants the record stated, come within the as thus that bonds should law warrants, they be allowed to issue in unless place must are they be stricken down than that for some reason prohibited provision to. Inasmuch constitutional referred 23, 10, Constitution, as article does not apply expenses indebtedness incurred for necessary current follow, course, it must as a said government, matter that section does not prohibit obligations the issuance of as evidence expenses that character. overlooked the We force of counsel’s to the effect no was argument, revenue in warrants, fact provided to meet these and that as a conse quence they void, but it illegal impossible would law, uphold that contention in the face of the declaration of by the court on stated the former Inasmuch we appeal. now hold that declaration to be on the court as the binding case, is apparent made that the contention cannot now Indeed, be upheld. it is brief frankly contended on file that this court was error the issuance of holding war $400,000, rants in excess of for the of which payment there were revenues, funds on account of the failure in was not indebtedness, creation of within art. meaning section 23, 10, of the Constitution. But mere error made holding court appellate ground is not overruling its decision the same case on a subsequent appeal. In the absence of a of manifest or showing gross injustice subsequent on the appeal, Ayer error immaterial. & Tie Co. v. Lord Common 1096; wealth ex rel. 85 W. S. (Ky.) Tool Co. v. Champ Spring Co., 1, 513; 146 App. Mo. 123 W. S. v. Jacobson U. Gypsum S. Iowa,
Co., 330, 122; 150 130 N. W. Beiseker, Schmidt 19 v. N. 35, 1096; D. 120 N. Osborne, W. v. Jeffrey 145 Wis. 129 932; N. W. New York Ins. Co. v. McIntosh 46 (Miss.) Life 401; Hartman, South. Baum v. 238 Ill. 87 334; N. E. Evans v. 543; 66 S. E. Nail, App. Ga. v. Jones, Lewis 97 Ark. W. 596. S. *8 OF OKLAHOMA. COURT
154 Bund Indebtedness. Bonds of State Issue In re not involved reversal “points Several former for the warrants that It contended here. urged appeal” 10, art. of section the inhibition are within question provided legally has been Constitution, and that no revenue These warrants. of such large portion meet at least a which to that holding former by are disposed contentions apply intended to 10, of was not the Constitution art. pro- under character consideration indebtedness of the inhibition true, is no constitutional That being there ceeding. in their be issued sought bonds against the warrants stead. show the was insufficient to proof
The contention that of, and re- disposed been already of the warrants has validity quires no further treatment. to the lower court were warrants first presented
Certain disallowed, issue, that the bond withdrawn or and it is contended court, the trial void for reason that the ordered the state. outstanding bonds do cover indebtedness of court, consent Warrants so withdrawn were withdrawn they validity. judg- the reason were doubtful court’s ment recites that the the total warrant out- proof established indebtedness of amount of the standing bonds why issued. see reason not the persons ordered We holders of the warrants omitted or denied should heard to complain finding. Certainly duty of this was the court not to allow covering illegal bonds issue doubtful warrants. of the strongest grounds would seem that one requiring bond to be reviewed the court issue would be in the nature warrants of the of a precaution illegal doubtful class bond from the issue. eliminated other contention made that requires consideration that the statute under which is to the effect this proceeding was 16, 1913, repealed May when the brought was Revised and Oklahoma, generally Annotated. Laws referred to as effect, Code, repeal took Harris-Day operated to 372 proceeding. abate the Sections the Compiled 1913.—You. XL. Opinion of the Court. Harris-Day of 1909 forward brought
Laws provides: article of the Constitution Compilation. Section *9 previously “The of a statute not a statute repeal shall revive statute, accrued repealed by right, repeal any nor shall such affect incurred, or or of such penalty proceedings begun by virtue repealed statute.” 16, 1913. May
This is a h> certainly proceeding begun prior 1909, omitted 372 and of the Compiled Sections Laws from the its offi- Harris-Day Code, specifically gave cers, the and right proceeding, pro- to institute this when filed, tests or took on the proceeding remonstrances were affects, nature of a as has been observed. It litigated dispute, parties, immediate but the holders the warrants well, and the taxpayers appears as and to be be- proceeding by the in the gun, just quoted. saved Constitution sections The adoption Harris-Day operated repeal pre- Code therefrom, sections omitted but such existing repeal does the validity affect of a of the character under proceeding con- sideration, appears express adoption terms of the act. saving provision found chapter Session the act which the Harris-Day Code was adopted Laws as the Revised of the state. in the following language: Laws “All or general public laws of the state of Oklahoma not are hereby contained this act shall said revision repealed. Provided, that not be repeal, any construed to or in way any affect laws, election, special appropriation, special or local any vali- act or bond issue dating thereby authorized, nor affect any remedies, proceeding any existing pending rights nor the statute limitations force at running approval the time of the act; of this but all such local special laws, and appro- elections, acts, issues, priations, special proceedings, validating bond pending existing rights and remedies shall continue and if respects in all this act had not been passed; provided, exist further, that this act shall not be repeal construed to act enacted Legislature subsequent adjournment to the session of the extraordinary Legislature convened Jan- (cid:127) 1910.” uary,
This one proceeding being begun prior to’ date when the adoption effect, act of went into being purpose COURT OF OKLAHOMA. Bund Indebtedness. Bonds
In re State to Issue letter bonds, it comes within an issue of procuring step necessary statute, pending,-as as a proceeding begun issue The bond act. the omitted in a authorized bond issue provided the proceeding can only by saving be saved or become not abate did proceeding It follows that the purpose. under which the statute repeal of invalid reason of the prior repeal. was to such begun affirmed. the trial court is judgment WILLIAMS, being dis- JJ.,
HAYES, J.,C. and KANE B. ROBERT- Messrs. appointed qualified, Governor A- J. in their to sit SON, BREWER, R. D. CAMPBELL P. M. TURNER, this case. LOOE- places consideration ROBERTSON, J., BREWER, concur. JJ., BOURROW, dissents. exceedingly ROBERTSON, I Special regret Justice. reached from the conclusion me to dissent compels
necessity *10 But, owing in case. this court the members of by other involved, I would be I feel that question importance the This be- views. express my I fail to my duty in should remiss possible, brief as and will I shall be as opinion, ing dissenting impel the me outline of reasons a skeleton give only dissent. upon majority out and relied rule set general upon questions appellate of an court a decision
opinion that only upon binding, decided is any case law involved well, thereafter, upon büt court as appellate court the lower questioned, conceded, correctness is not wise its_ that, exceptions, which is among rule has well-defined but the manifest injustice former decision gross following if by follow, the ignored decision will wrong authority. as an or considered upon looked exception without present regard case rule to of this majority differ with reference to me to that causes noted them. Whether following opin- reached the conclusion injustice, wrong, case would ensue gross former ion in the considering result reached be determined can 1913.—You. XL. Dissenting Opinion. case,
former I comparing what conceive should have been the result.
Section art. Constitution, reads as follows: “The Legislature shall provide by law for an annual tax sufficient, with resources, other to defray ordinary the estimated expenses of the state for each fiscal year.”
This section of the Constitution has duly been vitalized by proper legislative enactment. Section Comp. 1909; Laws section 7449, Rev. Laws 1910. The duty meeting the neces- sary expenses of maintaining state government is a solemn one, binding and the various Legislatures of this state have not evinced any disposition same, to neglect the or to shift that responsibility to shoulders; other indeed the converse seems to true, as shown by the amounts included in the various appro- priation bills which have been enacted since statehood, and of which we take judicial notice. Nor does expense necessary of maintaining the state government come within the constitu- tional provision debt-limiting of the Constitution. The framers of our organic clearly had in mind occasions such present, when the regular on revenue, account of failure to col- lect; or for other reasons, would be insufficient to meet cur- rent obligations and to obviate any such difficulty they provided by article 10 of the Constitution that : “Whenever the expenses of any fiscal year shall exceed the income, the Legislature provide may levying tax ensuing year, fiscal which, with resources, shall be suffi- cient to pay the deficiency, as well as the estimated ordinary ex- penses of the state for the ensuing year.” As may seen, be clearly this section confers authority legislative branch government provide, in addition to reg ular levy provided in section 2 of article supra, for a suffi cient levy to meet such outstanding obligations as may have been brought forward from the preceding year. Section 7621, Comp. *11 1909 (section 7374, Laws Rev. Laws 1910), shows clearly the Legislature fully has met the requirements of the Constitu tion in this respect, and in addition said section provides and makes the specific dut)'- certain state officials to ascertain the amount of unpaid expenses for the preceding year, as well OE OKLAHOMA. COURT Indebtedness. Bund Bonds to to Issue of State re levy and estimate proper that a order year, current as for however, makes Constitution, them. to meet made
bemay way yet; in another deficiencies these for caring for provision refuse fail or officials state or the Legislature e., i in case 10, art. in section levy mentioned the additional provide Constitution, provides: art. Thus section supra. revenues, failure in or casual deficits to meet may, “The state debts, debts; but such for, contract provided expenses for or not, at shall the aggregate, inor singly contingent, and direct aris- dollars, moneys and the thousand hundred four time, exceed applied debts shall such creating the loans ing purpose so the debts repay or obtained they which for whatever.” purpose contracted, to no other meet “casual deficits are to for provided thus The debts for,” provided not otherwise for debts in revenue failure Legislature as the manner contracted may 8, Comp. 1, chapter Laws Article statute. provide by may re- last The statute remedy. adequate ample provides an foregoing section effect. in full force and now ferred to is power a limitation of is, doubt, without the Constitution debts; away take cannot “argument to contract of the state used. therein language plain, unequivocal meaning forceful dealing organic only section If this was debts, should, I state contract power limitation further.” far shall we and no hesitation, go thus say without said: And, been well has the condi- grave the need revenues great “However state, the power raise revenues vested confronting tion courts; and, if there pro- not in the is no
in the Legislature be had from the may present relief situa- by which of law vision of our government branch is con- legislative tion, then be discharged delay, which without duty fronted with supervision from or by the courts.” interference without situation, there However, I provisions as view wholly satisfactory, though being fraught Constitution, uncertainty, by is intended delay or less with more situation present may Eor, as the be met. contingencies that such 23 fixes a law, definite line of limita- while as I view contract, amount of debt it may to the the state upon tion *12 XL. 1913. —Vol. Opinion. Dissenting
limitation is intended apply only to that particular means of debt; incurring is, as a limitation of the amount of debt which bemay manner, this contracted and not as a limitation upon the amount which may be contracted Eor means. in case the necessity arises for the creating debt in $400,000, excess of provides Constitution for the pas- sage aof law debt, creating providing means of pay- ment, by the Legislature.
Section art. of the Constitution, provides: “Except the debts specified in sections twenty-three and of this twenty-four article, no debts shall be hereafter contracted on behalf'of this state, unless such debt shall be authorized law some work or object, be distinctly specified there in; and such shall impose and provide for the collection of a direct annual tax to pay, and sufficient to pay, the interest on as it debt of falls due and also to pay and discharge the prin cipal debt within twenty-five years from the time contracting thereof. No such law shall take until shall, effect at election, a general have been submitted to the people and have received a majority of all the votes cast for against it at such election. On the final passage of such bill in either House of the Legislature, the question be shall taken by yeas and nays, to be duly entered on journals thereof, and shall be: ‘Shall this people?’ pass, bill and ought the same to receive the sanction of the ”
Thus is seen by the foregoing section provisions are made for every kind of debt except those mentioned in sections 24. Section 23 gives authority for the state to contract debts to the amount of $400,000, to meet deficits, casual or fail- ure revenues, or expenses not provided otherwise for, and section 24 authorizes the state to contract debts without limit for the purpose of defraying expenses incident to war, repel invasion, and suppress insurrection. With exception of the debts mentioned in these sections, two section 25 reserves to the peo- ple the power alone to create debts. Is it for the courts to say that this just is a and proper provision? Shall the courts pre- vent the exercise of power by the usurpation of legislative functions? Shall the judicial arm government, on the ground of expediency alone, usurp the prerogatives of the Legislature, OE OKLAHOMA. COURT
16Ó Fund Indebtedness. Bonds to Issue of State to Applicatioa re reserved specifically they rights people take from opinion majority so, If law? organic in their to themselves mind, language But, my correct. court con- admit simple will so so-plain Constitution should construed, then it needs must if it struction, and of construction rules well-recognized by the under and done meaning far-fetched instruments; no strained organic it. be given *13 Court Supreme the of Mr. Lamar by said was As Justice U. Rollins, 130 S. County v. in Lake the United States
of 1060: 32 Ct. Ed. L. Sup. 9 Constitution, and the of the framers not assume “Why exactly what meant existence, it into voted who people
the impression no produces reading its glance, first At the says? and sufficiently plain; It seems meaning. the toas of. doubt observe. must rule which we a well-settled cáse there is in such constitution, .to to a construction, applied of object in adopt- people framers, and of of its to the intent effect give ing and, itself; instrument in the found is to This intent it. ambiguous, is not provision of a text constitutional when to search thereto, liberty not at are construction courts, giving in thought at get To instrument. meaning beyond for its constitution, contract, aor statute, a a expressed in meaning or the of signification the natural cases, is resort, in all first arrangement grammatical of words, order in the which.the con- words If the them. placed have instrument framers nor con- absurdity, involves meaning definite vey a meaning, instrument, then that parts tradiction and instrument, accepted, must the face apparent to it right to add Legislature nor courts neither * * * reason for is even stronger There it. take or adhering in that than constitution case of is in the rule this body of deliberative by a passed latter statute, since aof are more members of whose proportion numbers, large small and discrim- construction niceties of conversant or less revision and for attention exists opportunity ination, fuller and con- by framed constitutions, although character, while á elec- of the entire the votes body ventions, created yet are if they disposed, little even whom state, the most a tors and simplest refinements. in such to, engage able constitution, if itself sensi- aof interpretation obvious most 40 —5
Vol. 1913.—You. XL. Dissenting Opinion.
ble, is the most to be people adop- that meant its likely by the tion.” Bronson, v. People Purdy, 2 Hill Mr. (N. Y.) Justice on the commenting import from the and dangers departing intent, meaning hunting used to language express after probable embraced in that meanings clearly language, says: * * * * * * “In this way the Constitution is made
to mean one until in the another, man by one thing something else by inis danger being rendered a mere dead let- end ter; that, too, where the language plain explicit is so that it is impossible to make it mean more than unless one thing, * * * we first lose of the instrument itself sight roam at large the boundless field of speculation.” I think the above is the rule of construction are bound we follow, if any needed; at all hence, construction light sections, foregoing may we ask properly ourselves question, Is the $3,000,000 issuance of approximately bonds, to take up equal amount of the outstanding state war- rants, the creation of a debt within the of the sections meaning quoted? so, hereinabove If then the state cannot exceed the $400,000-limit fixed If refunding method. debt, it is a then the relief is Legislature through *14 of section supra. debt, If it not is a then medium can state, in this manner, beyond such limit go even to ameet casual deficit on account of the failure of revenues for cause?' any Or would it be reasonable to that say by sections 23 and con- strued casual together, deficits bemay up made to the amount $400,000 of in by methods sought this proceeding, but when reached, amount is further evidence of indebtedness shall not be state, issued without the assent of electors of the pro- by Constitution, vided section 25 of supra-? This to my mind is reasonable construction to be placed upon the consti- provisions tional under consideration. As has been suggested Harrison, B. himself Hon. a member of constitu- John convention, tional in a on paper this subject, and whose views are in complete harmony my own: COURT OF OKLAHOMA. Fund Indebtedness. Application of to Issue Bonds to
In re State . of out provisions conclusion is further borne “This Constitution, county, provides which that no 26 of the corporation or sub district, political or other township, school in any be allowed become indebted of the state shall to division such provided of for year manner m in excess the revenue on voting of three-fifths of electors year, without assent in sub municipal the affairs question. Casual deficits Such that year; not the revenue provided divisions shall exceed state, $400,000 affairs shall exceed they while in division of debtedness words, In a subdi municipal of the revenues. excess in expressly the state is limited amount of any year to the revenue may provided incur for But the of the far year. expenses being greater ascertainment, more the state difficult of accurate complicated and more $400,000 in wisely margin is excess of the given limita in neither case shall fixed provided. revenues But those people question. tions exceeded a vote of the on the without of the is to the voters right given subdivisions at in the state reserved municipality; large, right is state, to be Legislature. to the electorate of the This submitted every revenue-raising runs and debt-limit thought through one of the is the unbroken chain ing section Constitution. compre entire as a system together which the is linked revenue it this to. give To is it an effectual give meaning hensible whole. force, which, cumbersome though operation, its working But eliminate complete thought nevertheless itself. meaning render powerless, it of its it a mere strip potency This, in less, not rattle of words. my judgment, incoherent speedy inadequacy be done. afford present no fault of relief as is under conditions is necessary interpret are to and con courts. functions court found, it is strue the law as to distort to suit economical au expediencies. distinguish meet I have conditions or studied the political attempt ques thorities between debts and which them, us. confronting tions like the one conceded, it must Some elusive, nifty, ingenious argument, models but, their my abode is drapery thought, judgment, proper rather than reason. If there is a real theory the realms distinction, my I must too dull logical then confess mind is scope, finite in perception, too to trace those infinite lines. an legal I am. unable to see difference between a debt and paid money to be and no obligation with which ought distinction between a debt pay comprehend legal it. I cannot depleted treasury. drawn I cannot unpaid warrant *15 1913.—You. XL. Dissenting Opinion. and deficit which a debt significance differentiate between that the argument I unmindful of the must met. And am not be solemn, obliga and moral legal,
people of state assumed expenses there pay government tion to maintain state that the necessary I the contention of. running expenses overlooked Nor of the staite is not a within debt-limit debt the argument state constitutions. Nor ing provisions most outstanding unpaid meet that the of bonds with which to issuance but the form debt, merely changing is not a creating warrants thereof. But a the full force of these arguments concession of' unpaid that are a debt. Be original is a confession sides, warrants our Constitu provisions must be observed worded. sec peculiarly cautiously provides tion are' casual the state may tion that to meet deficits con art. course, $400,000. This, be the amount of is to tract debts to But, statute. provided by to the when according procedure done a $400,000, deficit or whenever debt for ever such exceeds contracted, must a purpose sought Legislature pass debt, such must be to the law voters of the submitted creating This, in my judg sanction or rejection. Constitution, ment, herein lief, contemplated and as procedure is the re stated, tardy granting while it is cumbersome and procedure we have.” is nevertheless say following how can we foregoing, view the rule announced in Re to Issue Bonds State Indebtedness, to Bund 127 Pac. Okla. would result in manifest ho all the working injustice people gross ot plain not do violence to the provisions would ? inevitable, of our law To result is organic me and, true, that, this court not to be ought bound being any- such an decision, irreparable which would work hardship and to fund denied. wrong.