Wilmington daily gazette., 1873-06-23
AsOTuER PARK TROuBIn.-The City Council

ANoTHER PARK TRoUBLK.-The City Council,
of Philadelphia, having passed an ordinance
That the sum Of two hundred thousand (200,-
OO0l dollars be and the same is hereby appropria-
ted 10 the Commissioners Of FairmouHt lark for
the LAYING cut and permanent i'm mprovement Of the
East Park 70 be taken out Of the loan for the fur
ther extentiol Of Paramount Park, and the i'm
provement thereof, approved October q, 1879
The Mayor submitted the ordinance to the City
Solicitor who reformed il to the Mayor with an
opinion, from which We extract the following
by The ordinance Of October q, 1872, above re-
ferred 10, the Mayor Of PhIladsiphia was author
lZed to borrow, the credit OF the city from time
10 time 81 500 900 be applied rs tollows First,
for the purchase Of land within and adjacent to
the PARK, 81, eco 900. Second. for the permanent
improvement Of TIE Park, 100000.
The separation Of the objects for which the
money 10 be borrowed was 10 be expended seems
10 have been in view Of the provisions Of the llth
section OF the act Of Assembly relative 70 Fair
mount Park, approved April 10, 1865, which act
designated the purposes for which mOuey might be
borrowed by the ciIy for the benefit of the Park.
Now If part of the the money specifically set
apart for the purchase Of land for the Park could
by the proposed ordinance be directed to its i'm
provement there ls no reason why the whole Of il
could not be 90 directed, and thus the requirements
of the consolidation act, before referred to, would
BE- practically nullifed.
In my opinion the taxpayers Of the city would
have a right to object 10 such action the part OF
Councils, ana possibly TO prevent its consumation
BY inJunchSn. The holders Of loans issued under
the ordinance Of October, 1872, would seem 10 be
entitled 70 the same remedy, inasmuch a. under the
case Of the Western Saving Fund Society VS.. The
City, C., l15, the provisions of that ordinance
would in ali probability be held by the courts if
the question should be raised 10 form part of the
contract between the city ana the losnhoider
On the whole, am OF the opinion thai the au-
thorty 10 borrow the said 81 6000 0 having been
given by Councils for a specific object viz: the
purchase O! lAud-no part o. the said money can
lawfully be diverted by the proposed ordinance 10
another purpose, such as the improvement OF the
Park. Yours, respectfully,
CHARLES II. T. COILS, City Solicitor.
Upon!this opinion, Mayor stokiey, based his
objections TO the ordinance Of the Councils and We
ioed the bill diyerting the 100000 from the pur-
pose for which il was 20 be borrowed.
The city OF Wilmington has been authorized 10
borrow mo1ey to pay of the floating debt, there
by pledging the faith Of the city and property Of
the taxpayers for the bonds when due, and also to
borrow for the improvement Of the waller Works
$500 700, and to such extent increase the debt Of
the city. The objection raised 20 the legal right
Of our City Council 10 increase the debt Of the
city 10 purchase park bears some analogy TO that
r, II by the Mayor Of Philadelphia. Where il
tte e in asking the assent Of the Legislature Ia
tax The people 70 raise certain sum, If the Coun-
cl ass the legal right to incur q debt exceeding
It amountF Il will be perceived that the City
Solicitor Of Philadelphia holds that the bail vetoed
by Mayor stokley affected and was violation oi
the contract bet1Gcn the sity and the loanhoc