, 1876-02-23

TINT tho new charter only repealed 80 much
Of tho old ono ~ was inconsistent Herewith,
md maintains TINT there Ia no inconsistency
between tho one charter which rcatls TINT tho
city may "borrow tho necessary money for
time not longer" otc., md tho other charter
which says tho city "sha1l not become ill.,
aebted in my manner Or for any purpose " to
m amount exceeding the 4 per cent li1nitn-
lion. Under the old city charter, tho city
was authorized to borrow money and iss''o
certificates therefor; and Mr.. HAYES admits
that to borrow money By tho ealo Of bonds
would bo illega1. Why would 1t DO any mora
illegal 10 issue bond running one year, or
tiye years, than to issno n certificate Of loan
running six months or ono year? Tho same
constitutional md chnrter provision governs
both cascs; thoro is no other provision Of
law, antl tho samo prohibition which mikes
the issue of Il 600 bond illegal equally np-
plies to tho issue Of $5, 000, 600 Of loan.cor-
ti1cates.
Mr.. IA1Es seoks further to vinlicate tho
lcga1ity Of these certificates BY saying:
]. Tint tho Law Department in 1876, be-
fore tho adoption Of tho new charter, de-
clarcd that tho city would hayo tho power
under tint charter to make temporary loans.
2. That tho prohibition Of indebtedness in
tho Constitution md chastor applies only to
bonded debts.
3. Tint thoro is no express repeal Of tho
power to make temporary loans.
4. That all previous laws not inconsistent
with the now aro continued, and that all
municipal ordinances in existence shall not
be repealed by the adoption Of tho new chnr-
tor; that all corporate rights and property
vosted in any municipality sha!l continue
under tho new eharter; and that, where q
different remady is giyon by tho new ohar-
tor applicable to any existing right as tho
time of tho now incorporation, the Same shall
DO deemed cumulative to the remedies be-
fore provided.
6. That, nfter tho adoption Of tho now
charter, but before it was officially pro.
claimed, tho Common Council enacted, in tho
form Of m ordinance, tho provisions Of tho
charter Of 1876 authorizing the city to bor-
row monoy without limit; and then argues
that, rs tho new clarter provides TINT "all
ordinances in force at tho timo OF tho adop-
WILL u @AV ACH &44lAA VIZ HAA44 SOAtlAAH III AAA
force, this ordinance authorizes tho city to
mako thcso loAns!
Wo confess that these points made by tho
Comptroller impresa us only the moro gzave-
" with tho weakness Of the defense of these
loans. II tho prohibitions Of tho Constitu-
ton and charter apply only to bonded dohts,
then perhaps tho provisions of the charter of
1865 continue in force; hut to assume ouch
construction Of tho Constitution md charter
is to defeat and destroy the only purpose and
end sought by that prohibition, which was
to prevent Municipal Governments contract
ing md increasing debts in any form beyond
certain limit.
AIr. HAYES falls to furnish tho opinion
given by tho Law Department in 1875, that
under the nev charter tho city might con-
tract millions Of dollars Of debt On 1oaus.
His citations Of tho reservations Of previous
rights and laws have no application to the
question Of the power to create dsbts pro-
hibited by tho Constitution and present char-
ter. We fail to see tho applicability Of pro-
visions relating to cumulative remedies. Is
it intended that the prohibitions against Gre
ating debts is cumulative authority to make
loana2
Tho citation Of tho ordinance of the Com
mon Council in 1ta5, 1876, giving tho Coun-
ell power to borrow money in e1cess Of the
| & per cent limitation, Is remarkable. II the
new charter, did not repeal tho oharter Of
| 1866 why the necessity Of this ordinance
And when or where did the Common Coun.
| ell get authority to give its own officers the