Los Angeles herald., 1892-05-28

ments undertaken on the various parks,
considered in connection with def
cheney account, the appropriation
made by the city council will be
insufficient b enable you to pay
your deficiency bills and make
these contemplated improvements, and
at the same time expend $4,000 on the
Hollenbeck Workman park. And it is
accordingly claimed that the council
will have to increase the appropriation
for park purposes, otherwise this mag
magnificent gift will be in danger of a
lapse through failure to perform the
condition.
I submit that such claims cannot be
sustained on any reasonable or legal
grounds.
Whatever may be your power over
the distribution or expenditure of the
funds usually or ordinarily appropriated
by the council for improvement or main
tenance of parks, there is certainly no
express authority in the law enabling
you to divert this particular $4,000 set
apart for the specific purpose of per-
forming the first condition toward &C
quiripg this new park, and expend it in
the maintenance or improvement OF
some other park.
The very terms OF section of the act,
quoted on page FIVE of this letter, de-
clares that the revenue obtained for ac-
QUESTION purposes shall be applied only
to acquisition purposes or If raised for
maintenance or improvement purposes,
it shall be so applied. -.
Whatever may be the result to the
creditors of the city holding unpaid
claims against the park funds, or what
ever may be the result to other parks in
consequence of insufficient appropria-
tions for park maintenance or improve
ment Gan ineuficiency which am not
prepared to concede, as / am
informed that liberal appropria.
tions have been made for such purposes
for the current year) nevertheless, the
five Thousand dollars set apart by the
council for the particular purpose OF i'm
provement Of this park in question, is as
much stamped with the character OF be-
ing portion of the purchase price to be
paid only for the acquisition OF these
particular lands, as though it were to be
paid directly to the donors themselves.
Being such, I respectfully submit that
your honorable board may not use it for
any other purpose.
And If any deficiency in park appro-
priations exists, such deficiency may
not be saddled upon this appropriation
for purchase price.
In conclusion upon this whole case it
is my view, that nothing further re-
mains for the council to do in the prem
ises, and that the entire matter has
passed beyond their control.
And do not think it inaccurate as
1arva1 - - - I,
lie now has such right in this matter
as to lawfully insist that you should
discharge the condition by the expendi-
ture of the specific fund provided for
the particular purpose, and that a citi-
zen might even successfully invoke
mandamus proceedings to that end.
With the hope that after careful con-
sideration, your own views may take
the same direction ~ my own, SO far as
the general conclusions are concerned,
! have the honor to remain. respect
fully yours, r. H. F. VARIEL.
The exhibits made are as follows,
Honorable Board Of Park Commissioners OF
Los Angeles City,
GENTLEMEN: At Q meeting OF council
held January 26, 1892, l was instructed
to notify your honorable board oflthe
final acceptance of donations of lands
for park purposes, by the Hon. w. HI.
Workman and Mrs. Elizabeth Hollen-
beck, and that one of the conditions
imposed is that at least 5000 shall be
spent on said park during the year 1892,
and that the honorable council hopes
the park commissioners will feel it their
pleasant duty to comply with that con-
dition.
1 was also instructed to officially in
form you that money appropriated to
the park fund is understood to be dig
tributed as follows: To the Westlake
park, $11 1000; East Los Angeles park,
$11 900; Sixth-street park, city hall
park, Prospect park, Elysian park, plaza,
$4500; reservoir No. 4 park, $5000-the
same being fully eet forth in report of
the finance committee in it's recon-
mendation to the council at the time of
fixing their annual tax levy. Respect
fully, FREEMAN g. TEED,
City Clerk.
Note.-The above copy OF letter ad-
dressed by me to the board of park COM
missioners under date Of January 81,
1892, is perhaps misleading in this, that
in the itemized statement of the distri-
button of the park fund to the several
parks, as taken from the report Of the
finance committee. failed to note that
5000 was assigned to the Hollenbeck
and Workman park. AS the total
amount of the tax apportionment to the
parke for this year was about $50, 900, a
footing of the amounts shown by the
former letter will make this matter
clear, particularly as the $4,000 was re-
ferred to in the first part of the letter.
FREEMAN G. TEED, City Clerk.
FROM FINANCE coMMIrTEE's REPORT MADE
AUGUST 81, 1891.
RECORDS "a, page $751;
To the park fund we have set aside
$50, 500, and it is understood that the
distribution Of this fund is to be as fol-
lows:
To the Westlake park, $11, 900; to the
East Los Angeles park, $11 900; to the
City Hall park, Prospect park, Elysian