Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-12-10
EVANS EXPLANATION.
The Councilman Tells Why the Issue
of Bonds to Pay Contractors
WILL BE TESTED In THE COURTS.
He Says the Property Affected Will Have to
Stand the Cost, or
THE DEBT WILL SURELY BE DISPUTED

Il don I DelleVe the city VIII issue the
bonds authorized by Yesterdays election" !"
was the positive statement made by DIR. G.
Evans, Select Councilman from the Twenty
third ward. last evening.
'Why do think so? Well, there is no
doubt in my mind that the debt for which
the bonds are proposed does not belong to
the city, and have excellent reason to be-
tested in the courts. If it is, the correctness
of my position will be demonstrated.
s'Do you propose to test the matter your
self, doctor?"
Certainly not. But there are others who
will, I have no doubt
DIR. Evans was quoted in THE DISPATCH
few days ago as favoring the bond issue.
but declaring his belief that it was not nee
essary and that if carried any citizen could
go into court and prevent the city officials
from issuing the bonds. He was asked
yesterday why, holding such views on the
matter, he had voted affirmatively."
81 supported the bond ISSUE he replied,
Sin order that the city might have the
ability to pay any debt that might be
proven to be due
"Then you think the city has some debts
that should be paid by these bonds?'
The Question of Validity.
"No, don't think we really owe any
debt requiring an issue of bonds, and trust
our city officers will withhold the issue of
any amount of bonds until they clearly
satisfy themselves of the liability of the
city,
"Well, why is the city not liable for the
street improvement debt?"
''To begin at the beginning" replied the
doctor, ''the contracts were made under the
provisions of the acts of 1887 and 1889. II
these acts had the power to collect the cost
of the work done under them the contractor
would get his money. If they failed to
collect the cost of the work, he failed to get
his money The security for the contrac-
tors money lay in the power of, the acts
themselves. This power, the Supreme
Court said, was illegal and unjust. It was
the duty of the contractor to know this be-
fore he did the work and he assumed all
chances
''The city's part was simply the part of
collector of bills for the contractor. 1t did
not guarantee the contractor his pay-at
least, did not make such guarantee in ac
cordance with the requirements of the
statutes existing previous to the acts of 1887
and 1889, and therefore, in effect, did not
guarantee at ali.
Curative legislation was an act of justice,
which sought to restore to the contractor
the power to collect his debt off the prop
erty owner and to recoup his agent, the
city, with powers to collect for the contractor
what was due from the property owner. Cur
ative legislation does not involve the city
as a corporation, it is matter of equity be-
tween the contractor and the property
owner whose property received the benefit
of the work done.
A Test in the Courts.
1.-THE city may be sued for debt legal or
illegal If sued for this debt, proper de-
fense on the part of her legal defenders
would prevent any judgment being obtain
ed. Her defense would be that the con-
tractor took these contracts subject to the
powers in the acts of '87 and 'S9 to collect
the cost off the property owners; that as
these acts proved worthless, and as the con-
tracts were not made in accordance with the
legislation on the subject, therefore
the contractor must wait until the curative
acts are tested. If they hold good he will
get his money, if they fail he will not get
his money. The city's attorneys could
claim that the city itself has no interest in
this matter and cannot legally, if it had the
money, pay it out for such debt as this,
for this is a special contract debt and can
only be paid for under the terms of that
contract, the city's part being that of agent
only. Agents do not assume and cannot be
made pay the debts of the firms employing
them.
"A contractor doing work for corpora
tion is bound to know that the corporations
exercise of power is just and legal, and in
accordance with the statutes, else he Is
liable to lose the pay for work done for
them.
The Contractors Should Be Paid.
'This is the exact status of this case.
Should curative legislation fail to collect
this money, the debt cannot be collected at
all, therefore the issue of bonds is unneces-
sary Appropriations out of taxes to pay
these Improvement expenses are illegal and,
if attempted, ought to and will be resisted.
This debt must be collected off the property
benefited, and not off any one else, directly
or indirectly.
81 don't want the contractors to lose
their money" the doctor concluded. ''They
ought to be paid, but want them to wait
until they collect the debt off the parties
who owe it, and not off property owners
who never received any benefit from the
work done. I believe the curative acts
will collect the debt. This matter interests
more particularly the contractor and the
benefited property owner and not the city