(concurring) — While I concur in the majority opinion in holding that the title of chapter 121 of the Laws of 1951 is sufficient under Const. Art. II, § 19, and in holding that there was here no violation of Const. Art. II, § 38,1 desire to briefly state my reasons for concurring with the holding that no state indebtedness was created in violation of Const. Art. VIII, §§ 1, 2, and 3.
In November, 1944, the people of this state adopted the eighteenth amendment to their constitution, which provides as follows:
“Art. II, § 40. Restriction of Motor Vehicle License Fees and Excise Taxes on Motor Fuels to Highway Purposes. — All fees collected by the State of Washington as license fees for motor vehicles and all excise taxes collected by the State of Washington on the sale, distribution or use of motor vehicle fuel and all other state revenue intended to be used for highway purposes, shall be paid into the state treasury and placed in a special fund to be used exclusively for highway purposes, such highway purposes shall be construed to include the following:
“(a) The necessary operating, engineering and legal expenses connected with the administration of public highways, county road and city streets;
“(b) The construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair and betterment of public highways, county roads, bridges and city streets: including the cost and expense of (1) acquisition of rights-of-way, (2) installing, maintaining and operating traffic signs and signal lights, (3) policing by the State of public highways, (4) operation of movable span *842bridges, and (5) operation of ferries which are a par.t of any public highway, county road, or city street;
“(c) The payment or refunding of any obligation of the State of Washington, or any political subdivision thereof, for which any of the revenues described in section 1 may have been legally pledged prior to the effective date of this ■act;
■ “ (d) Refunds authorized by law for taxes paid on motor vehicle fuels;
“(e) The cost of collection of any revenue described in this section;
“Provided, That this section shall not be construed to include revenue from general or special taxes or excises not levied primarily for highway purposes, or apply to vehicle operator’s license fees or any excise tax imposed on motor vehicles or the use thereof in lieu of a property tax thereon-, or fees for certificates of ownership of motor vehicles.”
By this provision the people directed that all license fees for motor vehicles and all excise taxes collected by the state on the sale, distribution and use of motor vehicle fuel and other state revenue intended to be used for highway purposes should be placed in a special fund in the state treasury and used exclusively for highway purposes as defined in the amendment.
The bonds authorized by chapter 121 of the Laws of 1951 are payable solely from the proceeds of all state excise taxes on motor vehicle fuels (principally the so-called gasoline tax) which, by the eighteenth amendment, have been earmarked for highway purposes. The use of the tax proceeds here involved being limited to highway purposes, the situation is entirely different from that with which we were confronted in Gruen v. State Tax Commission, 35 Wn. (2d) 1, 211 P. (2d) 651 (see dissenting opinions), where the proceeds of excise taxes on the sale of cigarettes which had been available for the general fund were pledged to secure the bonus bonds.
In 1935, a similar question arose in Colorado whose constitution contains substantially similar restrictions against the incurring, of state indebtedness. The Colorado constitution had recently been amended to include a provision requiring that the proceeds of gasoline taxes and license *843fees with respect to the operation of motor vehicles be segregated and used exclusively for highway purposes. The state of Colorado proposed to issue revenue anticipation warrants payable solely out of revenues received from the taxes and license fees above described. It was proposed to sell these warrants to the Federal government and use the proceeds to carry out an extensive program of highway improvement. The Colorado supreme court in Johnson v. McDonald, 97 Colo. 324, 49 P. (2d) 1017, held that these warrants did not create a state indebtedness in violation of the applicable provision of the state constitution.
My view that no unconstitutional indebtedness is authorized by chapter 121 of the Laws of 1951 is based upon the reasoning in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Butler in the Colorado case above cited which is as follows:
“The decision seems to me to be right.
“The vigorous dissenting opinion of my brother Hilliard does not shake my faith in the conclusion that the statute assailed does not provide for the contracting of a debt within the inhibition of section 3 of article II of the state Constitution. The case, I submit, comes within the Special Fund doctrine repeatedly announced by this court in the cases cited in the principal opinion. The situation is this: An extensive public highway program is to be carried out. New highways are to be constructed throughout the state. Existing highways are to be improved. It is work that must be done sometime. The General Assembly, the exclusive judge of matters of public policy, has concluded that it is wise to have all this done during the present depression, while thousands of men are unable to find private employment, rather than to have the work distributed over a period of many years. To do the work will involve the expenditure of millions of dollars. That money is not now on hand. The federal government is to advance the money necessary to make these public improvements, and is to receive revenue anticipation warrants payable solely out of what in effect are license fees to be paid by those who use the public highways of the state for motor vehicle traffic. The 1934 amendment of article 10 of the Constitution segregates for exclusive use upon the public highways of the state all the proceeds derived from the imposition of licenses, registration fees and other charges with respect to the operation of motor vehicles upon the public highways *844of the state and the proceeds derived from the excise on gasoline. Such are the revenues out of which the advances are to be repaid to the federal government. The warrants to be given are revenue anticipation warrants and do not create a debt in the constitutional sense. Those revenues are derived, not from general taxation, but from impositions which, though not tolls in the strict legal sense, bear some resemblance thereto, because, in effect, they are charges for the privilege of using the highways. It is clear, under all the authorities, that if a state obtains an advance of money to construct a road or bridge, to be repaid exclusively out of the tolls received, it would not offend against the constitutional provision inhibiting the contracting of a debt; and the same principle applies here. Where revenue anticipation bonds or warrants are to be paid exclusively out of rents from dormitories, or charges collected from the users of electricity, gas, water, bridges or roads, such bonds or warrants do not create a debt within the inhibition of the state Constitution.
“We need not be alarmed by the suggestion that highways do not endure for thirty years, and that from some other source must come the money to rebuild and repair the highways. The 1934 Amendment, supra, provides that the proceeds derived from the imposition of motor vehicle licenses, and from excise on gasoline, etc., shall, except costs of administration, be used exclusively, not only for the construction of public highways, but also for their maintenance
It is my opinion that the provisions of chapter 121 of the Laws of 1951 do not authorize the creation of a state indebtedness in violation of Const. Art. VIII because the limited obligation bonds authorized therein are payable solely from revenues derived from license fees and excise taxes collected in connection with the operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of this state. Furthermore, such revenues, under the eighteenth amendment, may be used only for highway purposes as therein defined. Chapter 121 provides that the proceeds to be derived from the sale of these bonds shall be used only for highway purposes.
The revenues involved in this case are essentially charges for the use of the highways and, in principle, do not differ from tolls charged for the use of highway bridges. No one who does not use the highways for motor vehicle transpor*845tation is compelled to contribute toward their construction or maintenance.
I find nothing in our state constitution which prohibits the pledging of the revenues described in this act to the payment of these limited obligation bonds or which prohibits their issuance in the manner provided therein.
Being of the opinion that, for the reasons stated, no unconstitutional state indebtedness will be created by the issuance of the proposed limited obligation bonds, I concur in the majority opinion.