Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-01-17
TUESDAY,. JANUARY II, 1888.
A Legal Nut to Crack.

the City Hall swap to vote of the
people is in the right direction. But
admitting that the vote by indiffer-
en- ce and neglect on one side, and by
organized activity and money on the
other, should be an affirmative one,
then the question arises, how is the
deal to be consummated in con-
formity with the requirements of the
City Charter. That instrument
prescribes a mode in which all
city property shall be sold. No valid
title to realty can be had from the
city unless all these requirements are
rigidly observed. One of the funda-
mental exactions is that the property
shall be sold at auction to the highest
- bidder for gold coin, the sale having
Neen previously advertised for at least
days. Another is that the
1l@ts hall be paid into the treasury
money .. tied time. This is a
At a stlpul' -don of itself. 1t can
complete transa, 18th any extran-
not be encountered W hano+r.do
eous conditions. There Ca. ,,,r.+ ho
no barter. The money bid .tion
paid, and that closes the transa, %
Now, if after that the city determines
purchase the St. Vincent block. that
would be another and perfectly dis
tinct transaction, and would have to go
through all the processes governing the
purchase of realty by the city. Bids for
suitable sites must be advertised for
mot for any specific site. From the
offers the Council may select any site
it deems best. If that be the st. Vim
cent block, then the question arises
as to raising the money to pay for it.
. It is not competent for the Council
to take the money already in
the treasury, and pay for
the block. In order to
get the valid authority to make the
purchase, the question must be sub
mitted to the people, for it will then
come up in the shape of incurring
municipal debt. Authority to issue
bonds to meet that indebtedness must
be derived from a special vote of the
people. 1t must be remembered that
the money now in the treasury for
city hall purposes is building fund
and therefore cannot be used for
land purchase. We have already
seen that the school bonds offered for
sale have not been taken for the
reason, as alleged, that the charter
having limited the Indebtedness to be
incurred by the city to S500,000, and
within $4,000 of that limit having
been already reached, they are not
validly issued. We do not believe
this ground well taken, because
the general act past last
winter, authorized cities with 1O,-
600 inhabitants and over to
issue bonds, has superseded that
provision. Yet the fact remains
that the school bonds have
found no purchasers because of
the objection named. If bids could
not be had for school bonds, in which
no side or Interior questions, outside
the one named, have been raised,
where will purchasers be found for
bonds on the validity Of which null
titude of law questions will inevitably
spring up? Why the whole char
acter of this dicker is so involved and
abounds in SO many intricacies. that
even should it be carried through,
the city would find itself in the end
harassed with numbers of endless
and costly lawsuits. There is only
one way to meet the proposition, and
that is, when the question is submit
ted to the people, "To make or not to
make the swap?" they must snow it
under with their negative votes.