The daily gazette., 1882-09-15
the City Solicitors Opinion.

City Solicitor Turner presented to City
Council last evening his opinion in regard
TO the use, by the Council for city purposes,
Of twenty thousand dollars from the fund of
sixty thousand dollars realized from the sale
of city bonds for the use of the Board of
Education.
The opinion, in brief, is to the effect that |
the use of this money was a misappropria- |
ton OF funds, diversion of the proceeds of |
bonded debt to objects for which they
were never intended and that legislative
Intervention is necessary to enable Council
TO return the money to the School Board.
1t will, however, prove far from satisfactory
not only to those who disagree with its con-
illusions, but to those who believe the use of
the money was Illegal as well as improper,
and have waited anxiously for this very
document to strengthen their convictions
and furnish them with legal assurances of
the correctness of their position.
Very frankly the City Solicitor states that
in his opinion (and here his views will be
generally concurred I'M the proceeds of
Loan No. 80 should have been deposited free
from any connection with the general funds
OF the city. No doubt this is true, but as
Council, by an unanimous vote In open
meeting, directed this money to be de-
posted to the credit of current expenses, 1t
would have been more appropriate, and
more In consonance with his duty as the
legal adviser of the city, to have promptly
informed City Council, at this time, that
such action was clearly Illegal, when the
aaHtld ha1Ea
to the School Board, and the subsequent
trouble avoided.
Referring to the proposed repayment of
the money, the City Solicitor says that the
balance of $40, 900 due on account of Loan
No. 80 is "neither an appropriation nor in
the nature of an appropriation, nor is
"there any appropriation to which it could
"be charged" Assuming this remarkable
position to be legally correct, and the
conclusion is inevitable that Council acted
Illegally in paying single dollar to the
Board OF Education after depositing the
proceeds of the loan to the credit of the
city. The only appropriation ever known
by City Council against which to charge the
tnstalments of the loan as they were paid ia
the Board, was Loan No. 80, " and If It is
illegal to charge the balance of 500, 900 tt
this item now, it was certainly illega
10 charge the $4,000 which Coun
ell paid on drafts to the Schoo
Board several months ago to the sam,
objectionable item. Therefore, according t,
the City Collectors reasoning, the entire loal
was unlawfully disposed of, and the $40, ,OO
already paid by the city to the Schoo
Board and expended by the latte
body, must be considered as "a mis-
appropriation of funds, a diversion
p" of portion of the proceeds of bonde,
"debt to objects for which they were neye
intended, by body which was not au
'thorized to expend them In any manner,
1t does not matter, In this view, that tn,
Board actually received this sum of $40, ,OOO
II was paid out in an illegal manne
ny City Council and according TO tn
solicitors reasoning, the 'slegislativ
intervention" that is necessary +
enable Council to pay over the balance o
%SO,OOo, can compel the payment of tn
'enare amount Ofthe loan, for in the Opinion
OF the city's legal adviser the Council ba
spent the entire amount for current ex
penses, and the School Board has not legall
EeeeiVed dollar of the loan,