The daily gazette., 1883-06-11
D0ily G0sette
wTLMINGToN. MoNDA9. JUNE Il.
rhe Neeesslty for Prolnpl AOtlon.

The refusal of the Union National Bank
officers to honor any checks Of the city not
containing all the signatures required by
law, will produce state OF affairs in
the water department requiring q
prompt settlement of the dispute be-
tween the City Council and the
Water Commission as to the depart
ment's control. The City Auditor, acting
in strict conformity with the law, refuses TO.
sign checks tor water department bills
passed by the City Council, while the City
Treasurer, with hatural regard
for the responsibility of his position,
refuses to sign checks drawn
by the Water Commission. Thus, the
Council checks go to bank without the
signature of the Auditor, while the Commits
sion checks are unsigned by the Treasurer,
and as neither contain the signatures re-
ouired by law, the bank declines to assume
the risk of honoring them. .
The position of udtor Ball in this matter
is perfectly legal and natural under
the circumstances. The law plainly de-
fines his duties, and it would be as illegal
partmeut checks signed by the City Council
as it would be to sign check for a bill that
had not gone through any of
the forms required by law. The
Treaurer, also canpot be censured
for his action, as the peculiar obliga-
tions OF his office render him personally
liable for all moneys paid contrary to law,
and as the dispute has been raised he natur-
ally desires to refrain from doing anything
that will affect his personal and official re-
sponsibility in the matter, although he uc,
doubtedly incurs a great risk in attaching
his signature to checks that the Auditor re-
fuses to sign.
The course of Auditor Ball in the con,
troversy has been logical and consistent
from the first He took the law as he found
it, without presuming to pass upon its con
stituuonality, and his official ac-
tions have been based exclusively
upon the provisions of this statute
He plainly asked the City Council tC
show him legal authority for acting other
wise, but the Council has found it impossi
Bile to answer this pertinent and reasoEabl
request. On the contrary, the Couuci
asked the opinion of its duly authorized
legal adviser upon coustitutionality of tn
law creating the Water Commission
and upon receiving an answe
to the effect that 1t was .
proper enactment, binding upon all thu
officers of the city, contemporary thrus
it aside, and continued in the revolutionar.
course that has been pursued ever since TIN
measure went into effect. The Audi
tor, however, chooses TO Obe
the law as passed by the con
stituted authorities and sustained blythe city
legal adisyer, and is simply performing hi
plain duty under the law, in accordanc
with The official obligation he assumed whel
when he was elected to his position.
However, the controversy has now as
sumed phase that demands prompt sci
tlement. The talk of having the water de
partment checks honored 10y private partit
is all nonsense, as no business men woul
care to run the risk of loss, even
they wcre allowed a liberal commi
sion upon their advances. Without mon,
the water department operations will hay
10 be suspended, and this is point to whic
the existing dispute should not be allowt
TO extend.
The Water Commissioners, therefor
should act promptly, and assert their leg
authority without delay. The farce h
gose far enough, and they should no longc
cousent to being deprived of the powe
conferred, aud the duties enjoined, up
them by the law OF the State.