The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-01-07
Limiting Municipal Debts.

There can be no question but that
some form of restraint, either constitu-
Honal or legislative, must eventually be
adopted to limit the accumulation of
municipal debts. We have heretofore
shown, when CONNIE nting upon the re-
cent Message of Governor Allen, that
ihe taxation required to meet local and
municipal Indebtedness and expendi-
lure is more than four times the amount
required for State purposes. And yet,
while there is a legislative restriction as
to the amount of tax that may be levied
annually, there is no prohibition to re-
strain municipalities from creating
debts to any amount that the hypotheca-
tion OF their credit is possible.
In the formation of the present New
York Constitution, in 1s4s, special meas
ures were provided to impose restraints
upon thespower OF the State government
to contract debts. In fact, it was chiefly
In behalf Of that matter that the call for
convention to revise their Constitution
was made. Their State debt was then
S24, ,000, 900; and this without any special
emergency Of any kind calling for the
creation OF debt so immense. By the
new Constitution restraints were de-
,ised, and have been SO applied that the
debts of that State, after all the eXigen-
cies OF the late civil war, now amount to
but $lO,25o.W0, and 100000 of this are
covered by the canal tolls.
But those constitutional prohibitions
were not made to apply to the munich
pa tiles of the State. The result has been
there the same as in Ohio. light State
indebtedness an taxation, and a mu-
nicipal Indebtedness and taxation that
swelled to enormous proportions. In
1874 the State taxes in Ohio amounted to
q little ov er So, 000, 600, and the munich
POLARIZATION was $21, ,7so, ,S29. So, too. in
New York, in that year the taxation for
their State purposes was about $14,-
(00,000, while their municipal taxation
amounted to over $42,000,000. Upon the
indebtedness of the former there was a
constitutional limitation, over the latter
there was no restraint. 1t is true, their
constitution enjoined the passage Of
restraining act upon the Legislature
touching the contracting OF debts by
municipalities; but the Injunction has
been omitted, and the result is now a
municipal taxation Of more than $4,000
l0O'yearly.
By reason OF this lack of legal limita-
ton upon the power of municipal author
tiles to contract debts, we In Ohio have
now municipal indebtedness. amount
ing to nearly $26, 100000, about four times
as great as the whole Indebtedness Of
the State; while the yearly taxation for
local and municipal purposes amounted
In 1875 to ssS, ,oOS, ,976. Tie same analogies
hold good as to the municipal indebted.
ness of New York. While her State
debt is but SIC, ,250, 900, the debts OF her
cities, including the city of New York,
amount to sl90, 0O0,0 900; and the indebted
ness of their smaller municipalities,
towns, counties, &c., are estimated at
not. less than $1O0, 0,000, 900 more.
Here then is an aggregate municipal
Indebtedness in that State OF nearly
E}00,eO0,0Ool To be sure, that State is
large and wealthy. But there is no
State that would not find such a ponder
Gus debt oppressive and burdensome to
the last degree. And yeti like ours in
Ohio, those municipal debts are still In
crsasing. Ours In this State were In,
creased last year by the addition o.
s4,07l, ,5St.
The case OF Massachusetts is not dis
similar. BY The annual messages Of the
Mayors Of seventeen OF the principa
cities OF that State we learn that thei
aggregate municipal Indebtedness
amounts to $50,OOO,OoO. or this grea
sum, more than one half, s2S, ,752,635, Il
the debt OF Boston alone. And tn,
figures show that there too, the burden
Of debts are not being diminished, bu
are annually increasing.
These figures are startling; and ough
~ ~ -+ee-''