Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-10-13
VOTERS TO DECLARE
Whether They Will Adopt the
Plan of Councils to Pay
the City's Debt
ON OLD STREET CONTRACTS
The Ordinance on the Question Has
Passed Both Branches.
LIVELY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GAS.
Members of the Common Differ on the
Philadelphia COmpany's Bill.
ON OLD STREET CONTRACTS
LIVELY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GAS.
pOTSGS OF THE local LEGISLATORS

Councils were in session long time yes.
terdav afternoon. The Select branch spent
most of time arguing on the merits of the
ordinance for n popular vote on the Issue oi
bonds to pay street contractors. After fail.
ing, and for want of legal majority the
ordinance was again taken up and passed
finally. 1t now goes to the Mayor for his
signature. Common Council labored in
vain on the Philadelphia Company's bill
for gas at the water works. The discussion
was animated and lengthy, but bore little
fruit.
The bond ordinance was scarcely an
nounced in Select when Mr.. FitZsimmons
was on mis- feet to announce his objections
TO its passage. The attack was not sur
prise, as it had been generally understood
that several members were against the or
dinance, and were prepared to do battle to
ii. Mr. Lambie had been named as one of
these, but he soon dispelled such an i'm
preston by heartily championing the bill.
Mr. Fitzsimmons-I am not willing that
the question of increasing the city debt as
the ordinance provides shall be submitted
TO a popular vote. A large number of i'm
provements were made under the act of
1887, when it was known to be unconstitu-
tional Now that the Supreme Court has
declared it so, it is question whether the
money can be collected.
CONTRACTS NOT PROPERLY DONE.
'In addition to this" continued Mr.
Fitzsimmons, 81 am reliably informed that
a considerable portion of the work done
does not come up to the contract speciica-
tions and is not what the people want. If
the work is defective the contractors should
suffer. They are not entitled to any money
for inferior work 1t should be carefully
established that the work is properly and
efficiently done, and that the property
supposed to be benefited is really liable to
assessment for the improvement, before the
city assumes the debt as provided by this
ordinance. SUnder the courts decision, in
the case of Jones VS. the City, the contractors
have two years in which to establish these
points before their money is really due and
fthat is done, then will be plenty of time
for the submission of the question to a
popular vote"
Mr.. Lambie-I must confess that while
I am heartily in favor of the ordinance 1 do
not like the title in its present shape. 1t is
misleading. Instead af being worded, SIN
creasng the city Indebtedness" it should
have been "refunding the city indebted
ness" There is no doubt in nv mind but
that the unpaid assessments for street i'm
prOvements are already city debt, and nv
opinion is based entirely on the decisions of
the courts. In the suit of Evan Jones
against the city, the city's liability was
clearly set forth and it was shown that Mr.,
Jones's claim, like those of the other con-
tractors who did work under the old acts,
was q standing debt against the city. The
court did hold, however, that Mr.. Jones
must wait two years before he could COM
pei payment, but after waiting for three
years the city must pay him whether she
collected the money from the benefited
property or not.
THE MONEY MUST BE SECURED.
''It may be-" continued the speaker,
'that some of the work had not been COM
pleted according to contract, as Mr. Fitz-
simmons had avered, but certainly the Chief
of the Department of Public Works will
carefully look after that part of the agree
ment, and if not lived up to he can declare
the contract invalid and the city be none
the loser But of one thing / am certain.
If this ordinance fails TO pass Councils and
if the people fail to support it bv popular
vote, it will be a matter of necessity to
provide for the money needed to pay these
claims IN the next appropriation ordinance,
and the people will be very sorry for it.
There are not two years from now when the
money must be paid, but two years from
the completion of the contracts. Some of
the payments will be due inside of a wear.
The controller, 1 am sure, will not issue the
bonds until the money is due. In event of
q test case and the Supreme Court finally
placing beyond doubt the cost of improve
ments on benefited property holders the
money can be collected and paid over direct
without issuing the bonds. The money
will be applicable to no other purpose. If
the ordinance is not passed, l expect to
hear big howl all over the city when the
next tax levy is made on account of the
heavy tax. 1t will be enormous.
OBJECTS TO DOUBLE PAYMENTS.
''For myself have paid the assessm ents
on all my property benefited and do not
feel like paying for other peoples improve
ments by means of an increased tax levy.
The passage of this ordinance is the only
way to prevent that. If the contractors are
paid by an increased tax levy the city will
never be able to collect the money back
from the benefited property holders This
ordinance pledges the payment or redemp-
tion of the bonds to be issued with the
money collected from the improved prop
erty affected by the Supreme Court
decisions. 1t think it only right
and proper that the people should have an
opportunity TO vote on the question. There
will be plenty of time before the vote for a
full and fair understanding to be gained
of the ordinance by all the people The
people will learn that this Is not an in
crease of the city's debt, but an easy, intel
ligent plan to refund debt that already
exists. -
No further comment was INDUCED in, and
the ordinance was put on final reading, the
vote resulting Is for and 3 against passage.
The navs were Messrs. Fitzsimmons, Bluz
and Rohrkaste. Chairman Ford decided
the ordinance had failed for want of a ma
iority, Is being only half the membership
of the Council.
Shortly after, when few more members
came in and took their seats, Mr.. Heating
asked that the ordinance be brought up
again. Prompt action, he said, was neces-
sary, in order to prepare for the vote pro-
vided for on December g. On being put to
vote again the ordinance passed by vote of
q TO g. The negative votes were cast by
the same members as before.
New Ordinances Presented.
In the two branches the following papers
were presented and referred to the proper