Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-08-04
THE CITY BOND QUESTION.
Letter from Ex-aIayor Turner to COrrec
Soma Observation-Disclosures.

Letter from Ex-MayOr Turner to Correct
Some Misunderstanding.
EDS. RECORD UNION: In this mornings
issue of your journal, Mayor Brown in his
reply to Judge Beatty makes some state
ments which l know to be mistakes, and,
as he quotes me as an authority for son e
of them, l feel bound to correct them. l
am sure | have no bias either for or against
the Judge or the Mayor. | believe
they both wish TO do right, and are
severally confident that if they could en-
force their views it would further the in
terests of the city at large.
To my mind the statement that the paw
ment of The coupons of 1877 was the cause
of the whole trouble which has fallen TO
the Mayor and his associates these last five
and a half years, in connection with the
city debt, is unfair. And l certainly have
never said it was the cause of the whole
trouble" nor do | intend at this time to
enter into any discussion as to how much
of factor it has been in the rather dreary
sum; | will simply say it did not originate
with Judge Beatty. In fact, when it was
first suggested at a meeting of citizens
called to consider the debt in its then i'm
mediate bearings, he opposed it quite bit
terly. His strong contention was that the
Trustees were bound to levy tax of one
per cent. for the General Fund, so that the
Sinking and Interest Fund would be in a
better condition to absorb the overdue in
terest, and this as the only means of pre-
venting those holding it from harassing
the city with law suits" A number of gen.
tlemen felt quite sure that all coupons
over four years due were barred by the
statute of limitations. Judge Beatty held
the strongest presumption that Court of
last resort would hold that they were not
barred.
Well, the upshot of it was the meeting
agreed to recommend the Trustees to levy
one per cent. for the General Fund-Judge
Beatty's proposition-anda also recommend
ed that in the year 1881 no coupons except
those of 1877 be paid, letting all back of
that date take care of themselves as best
they could. At this Judge Beatty became
very angry and left the meeting, swearing
he would have nothing more to do with it.
The Trustees agreed. and committee was
selected to 20 to San Francisco and notify
the bondholders of the agreement. Albert
Gallatin, one of the committee, and myself
went to the Judges office and finally per-
suaded him to go with the committee.
And now word about the agreement.
In the first place we, in compliance with
what seemed 10 us an Imperative law,
levied l per cent for the General Fund /;
(55 per cent of which we knew must go
into the Sinking and Interest Fund, and
the same thing has been done this year
under mandate from the Supreme Court,
and must be annually 50 done until the
debt is all paid, How about the agreement
outside of this2 What was il? Was it a
contract Were the faith and credit of the
CITY pledged to ANYTHING?
Nothing of the kind The then Board
of Trustees simply said that after the taxes
were collected in the following May il
they had it to do they would do thus and
so. But in March new Board was organ
lied, with Mayor Brown at its head. Every
phase of the city debt must have been quite
familiar to him. He had been for years
associated with Judge Beatty as Bond Com
missioner. If he had any serious objections
to the coupons of 1877 being preferred, they
would not have been paid.
1t has jylst occurred TO me that my name
has been used on the strength of reply
made to a question put to me by City An.
ditor Mckee some weeks since, which
supposed referred to the payment of some
fifteen thousand dollars to Daniel Meyer
for past due coupons year or so before the
transaction under review, which was done
by and through the Bond Commission.
JABEz TUR3eR.