West Virginia freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1881-1886, 1882-02-22
WATER WORKS AGAIN.
Legal Points and Other Points.

MAN of this week notice of nv
communication III a previous issue
on the question, "Does the water
works ordinance constitute a debt
as meant by the Constitution ?"
This is purely legal question.
Upon the legal aspects alone of the
case, was it discussed, and the hope
was INDUCED that, if answered, It's
errors would be pointed out and
light be thrown upon the lap of the
case. In this l am disappointed,
but feel honoredin having called
into the field one who teaches with
authority and not as common
scribe. Few who read this vindica-
ton of the Councils legal opinion,
can long wonder who is the "C.''
that has taken up the cudgel to
sustain the position of the City At
torney. Despite the dread suspi-
cion that my opponent is an official
on whom the Council leans with
reverence and veneration, | propose
to show again that he is wrong.
AS Mr.. c. has my sincere person.
al regard, it will be understood, of
course, that in attacking his article,
nothing is aimed at him.
He rightly states that l am of
counsel for the Water Works Com
pany. told him so, have never
denied the fact, and would have af-
fixed my signature if had imagin-
ed that my name could add weight
to opinions based upon the deci-
sions of the highest courts in the
land.
&C." forgets that when he steps
down into the "saw-dust among
the boys" he throws away his
majesty as the "power behind the
throne" and his mere assertion will
not be taken by me, as conclusive
of the subject discussed upon its
merits. The nod of Jupiter terri
fed those that believed in him, and
they obeyed without question; but
his nod was powerful only while he
sat on Olympus, where he was king
of his crowd. Every man is not
obliged to stick up his thumb, just
because "Simon says, Up" That
may be the practice in Star Cham
Der proceedings, but it won't work
in the open air, where, as in days of
yore, any lawyer may stand up and
ask question. | decline to take a
restatement of the proposition as
proof of the matter disputed.
On a former occasion | took the
constitution and the judgment OF
our Supreme Court, and showed, as
thought, that if my reasoning
was right, the ordinance provided
for current expense, to be paid for
out of current income, and created
no debt, in the sense ofthe constitu-
ton. The answer to this is flat
denial: cit is debt" says c., "for,"
says he, "the promise to pay GER
tain sum of money at certain fned
times, not out Of funds on hand, but
out of funds to be provided in the
future-that is what practical bus
mess men call debt Well, let's
apply that rule. Under it, if the
city issues 100000 of bonds at per
cent. payable in 20 years, her debt
is 100000, and also $4,000 year
for 20 years, making in all $780,
600; for the interest coupon is a
promise to pay a certain sum of
money at certain times, &c." and
entirely within ''C.'s" definition.
If | knew the business men from
whom &C." gets his legal defini-
tions, l might show he did them In
Justice. However, the next time
&C" consults these practical bust
ness men" on question of constitu-
tional construction, ask them, How
about that 100000 problem
But we proceed. Having thus es-
tablished the existence of debt (by
charging an absurdity upon bust
ness mem &C." triumphantly press
es us to the wall, by citing a case
from the Supreme Court of Illinois,
which we read with him months
ago, deciding Springfield VS.. Ed
wards, 5 Reporter ~ that "a debt
payable in the future x x x is
within the constitutional prohi-
bition 4 x x x and it makes
no difference whether the debt be
for current expenses" &c.