Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-04-09
LEGALITY OF THE BOND ISSUE.

Numerous gentlemen whose opinions are
Of weight. differ from THE DIsPATCH's
reading of the Constitution with regard to
the issue of municipal Indebtedness. The
standing o. these gentlemen entities their
views to respectful consideration. 1t was
stated bv Controller Morrow to be "that we
can issue bonds for this Indebtedness to any
extent less than two per cent of the total
val uation." In other words, the idea is
that the city can at any one time. without
vote of the people, issue an amount OF bonds
not exceeding the two per cent limit.
A first rule of construction is that the
language of constitutional or statutory
provisions is to be construed, if
possible, in harmony with the gen.
eral purpose of the provision. There
is no dispute about the general purpose OF
this section. 1t is to place strict check on
the incurring of public debt which, prior to
the adoption of the Constitution, had been
notoriously reckless. The limit of seven per
cent was made absolute, with one exception
to be noticed hereafter; and within that
limit no one questions that the intention
was to place further check upon hasty and
improvident increase of debt by provid-
ing for vote of the people.
As to what this check exactly is,
the construction quoted above practically
impeaches the common sense of the Consti-
tutional Convention by asserting that it
gave the weighty character of organic law
to a restraint which, by the simplest device
in the world, could be made absolutely no
restraint at all. 1t supposes the Constitu-
tional Convention to have said, for instance,
to city with 500, ,00O, 900 valuation: you
must not incur 81, 500, 900 of debt without
a vote of the people. Tha: would be so grave
an abuse that we prohibit by the funda-
mental law, and take it out of the power
even of the Legislature. But we leave it
open to you to whip the devil around the
stump and get out 81, 900, 900 of debt by issu-
ing s., 900, 900 in April, 1000, 900 in July,
g, 0OO, 900 in October and 81, O0O, 900 in the
following January" No, gentlemenl Judge
Black, Judge Agnew, Buckalaw, Wayne
McVeagh and their colleagues were hardly
so foolish as to corporate into organic law so
empty provision ds this. 1t is more in
harmony with their character, as we'll as
with the tenor of this section, to recognize
that they said: eff city government keeps
its debt within per cent Of its valuation it
can be trusted so far; if it desires to mort
gage the property and revenues of the peo-
pie beyond that point, 1t must have the
sanction of the people by a special vote;
and beyond seven per cent OF the valuation
it cannot 60, even with the sanction of the
popular vote"
Moreover, this construction accuses the
Constitutional Convention of being unable
to put its meaning into unmistakable Eng
lish 1t alleges that the provision meant to
say that "the amount of any new debt or in
crease of municipal Indebtedness shall not
exceed two per cent" but in trying to
say that these eminent and learned gentle
men, by mistake, used the words that the
municipality shall not increase its 1ndebt-
edness" (referring plainly to the entire in
debtedness) Il" any amount exceeding two per
centum OF the total valuation" which by
the grammatical construction refers to the
amount of the whole debt. This is again
an unwarranted impeachment of the abil-
tiles of the eminent minds who composed
the Constitutional Convention. The Consti-
tuition is as whole model of terse, clear and
perspicuous language. Conclusive evidence
is afforded in this very section that where
it intends TO convey the meaning advanced
by our opponents its language places that
meaning beyond dispute. The final clause
provides authority for a special increase, BY
saving that any city whose debt at the adop-
tion of the Constitution exceeded seven per
centum could be authorized by law "to in
crease the same three per centum in the ag-
gregate at any one time" Here we see
that where the Constitution refers TO the
amount of increase it finds the words to
make its meaning clear, and it uses distinct
language from that employed with reference
to the total amount of debt in the clause.
under dispute.
Finally, while the debates of the Consti-
tutional Convention do not, so far as we
have found, contain any commentary upon
the language used, the history of this
section in the convention gives a very
strong indication OF what was meant. The
section, which was debated as section z,
originally made the absolute limit of debt
two per cent This was objected to as too
rigid a restriction, ana after various amend
ments had been offered, at different times,