San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1892-04-11
SOLID FACTS.
Extracts from the Arguments OIL
Judge AItgeiu an the Bond
Question.

7 maintain that the proposition
should be voted down:
lsl. Because We nav . already issued
a. many bonds as we can take care
of.
I'd. Because the purpose of thei
is not only improvideDt and extrava-
CANT, but unlawful.
ed Recaus. the administration is
entirely unworthy OF the taxpayers
cunfiu, nee, IL Reckless and eXtrava-
CANT, II not even dishonest and cor.
Eupt.
Upon the fret proposition, desire
to quote the figures. The bonded
debt of Bexar county now is not less
than SS26, $50, that of the city is ST.
223, SEQ, q total of 1850, $50 So far as
taxes are concerned, san Antonio Is
Bexar county. The assessed value OF
our property is $50, 000, 600, of which
about one.slxto should be deducted
for delinquents, double assessment s
and other errors. In other words, If
we in fact collect taxes on S25, OO0, 900
We are doing well. The rate of in.
terest averages 6 per cent. The law
requires an annual tax sufficient to
pay the interest and at least two per
cent sinking fund, total eight per
cent. Hence the lax that we must
nav on account of bonds alone, and
exclusive of all other purposes,
euounIs to no less than IS cents Oh
the 500 valuation. Do We want to
vote to increase this rate?
What is worse, Is the fact that the
two per cent sinking fund is delu-
sion. We are told that the debt is
reduced two per cent annually, and
that was probably the intention OF
the trainers of the constitution, which
contains this aDdatory provision.
] cannot persuade myself that it is
the intention OF that instrument that
the city should appropriate the sink
ing fund and in its place leave its
bonds. That operation looks too much
like the bank cashier who, on the eve
of his departure for Canada, leaves
his ticket or due bill in the drawer In
lieu of the money taken. am well
provide for this and that the appear.
ances of law are there to so far justify
the expedient, yet that was never the
intention of the constitution. THEM.
tention evidently wac to maintain the
public credit by restricting the public
debt, to avert bankruptcy rather than
further it. The intention was to pay
off bonded debts in installments, So
to say; not less than two per cent
annually, besides the interest. By
the construction placed on that pro
vision by the city it is used as
means of increasing the public debt
In former years q high rate of taxa.
tion was not so oppressive as now
because property was never rated g.
more than bali its value. Now Q
have two boards of equalization in al
most perpetual session at SIS day
each.
My next proposition is that the pur.
pose OF the proposed issue is not only
improyident and eytravagant but un,
lawful.
The council comes before the peo-
pie with the plea that the current
revenues for 1891 to 1862 have been
anticipated and pledged, or pawned,
as q security to the bank for advances
amounting to 1906, 800. How in the
name of common sense can q munici
pal corporation chartered to carry GU .
the powers of government delegated
essential to its existence? No govern.
ment can exist without taxes or q
revenue OF some kind. The charter
authorizes taxes to execute the
powers delegated, bat on what
principle such an attempted pledge
can be sustained IL question that
the council should answer.
1 insist that the supposed notes
credited to the San Antonio National
bank in the amount of $500, 500 are
void for all purposes, even II the con-
sideration Of them is not partly fraud
ulent and fictitious. Section as, OF the
charter, provides that the bonded
debt of the city shall not be increased
or other EVIDENCES OF DEBT be is
sued unless authorized by q vote OF
the taxpayer.
These notes, If anything at all, are
evidences of Indebtedness, just such
paper as the law forbids.
The law wisely limits the power OF
the council with reference to the crea.
ton of q debt to $4,000 unless
authorized by vote of the Taxpayers
The $50, 600 in bonds had long since
been issued for the years ls9l-1S92
when these pretended notes turned
up.
Not further back than Novem bel
"A, 1891, our supreme court, In Biddlt
vs.: City of Terrell Up. SOL, vol. Is, No
SD. w. r held void the pretended
notes for 81 ,404 and SOB, issued by
the city of Terrell, because the city
attempted to create q debt without
following the law. No provision for .
sinking fund was made.
There is no difference In principl,
between q bogus note of the small
city of Terrell for 81 ,404 and the DO.
gus notes of the city of San Antoni,