Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-12-16

say that they We're framed ITO protect
| ti.e creditors and preserfe tho financial
honor OF cifics and towns. And Ia the
| same case the court, discussing the ures
| ton as to whether a city could make oven
/ a promissory note for the sum Of $500
| without pr6vidmg This sinking fnnd for
| lis payment. says further. az n city can
| create a debt NJ $500, WHY
NAV i not create an Indebtedness for 9
X dis were permitted ti.c provisions Of
our consultation aud siatutcs which limil
/ the power and regulate the mauuef Of
the creation Of municipal indobtcdnes,
would be entirely uugatory.' (Ciy OF
| Terrell vs., Dessgint n Tex, 7T2.)
Now. II The intent Of these cpnstltn-
| tional provisions is 20 protect the cred.
TORS aud preserve the financial honor
Of the cities 81 Texas las said by our
supreme COURT by compelling item 10
"crcnte' sinking fund whenever they
should make debt then any legislation
which would permit city 10 impair or
destroy. sad fund ns soon rs it i created
would be contrary both 10 the letter and
spirit OF these provisions.
In Taylor vs.. Commissioners Of Ross
County, % Ohio. p % the supreme court
q Ohio. declared that That which was for.
hidden by the constitution could no more
be done indirectly than directly.
II may be insisted that sections . and
{ Of our constitution above referred to
do not. In express terms, forbid any such
disposition OF the sinking fund as the
council now propOses-that 1t only re.
qulres q sinking fund 10 be 'created,"
and thore stops 10 this argument we
reply that IL las We tlink we have sutli-
civntly shown the proposed action Of the
council VIII necessarily result In the inn
pnrmrnt or destruction Of said fund.
then Il j. in direct conflict with these
constitutional provisions, which our SUI
preme court has declared to be TO pro-
tect the creditors and preserve tie linnn-
oinl honor Of the city
Tue court Of appeals OF New York in
well considered ease, declared that
"a thing within the intent Of constitu-
uonal cnnciment Is. for oil purposes, 90
he regarded as within the words and
terms of a constitution; aud n legislative
enactment evading the terms aud frus-
trnhng the clearly expressed, or necessa-
rly implied, purposes Of tie constitution
y " clearly void as If ln express terms
forbidden. people VS.. Albertson, 10 n.
v. 90. As "a the Interpretation Of con-
Etiiuti0nal provisions, see also people vs.
Parks, 30 Cal, 695j
Can there be any question that IL by
section ~ OF the city charter the power
Is granted the city council at any time to
~ effect destroy the sinking fund by put
ting bonds in It's place which do not ma
ture until after the bonds for which gnid
luud is provided are due, that such leg
lalniNe enactment not only "evndcs the
terms Of the constitution" but also fris-
iitcs IT, necessarily implied purposes?
II 10 so does (which We think is plain.
then snid clause Of said section Is null
aud void aud Won should refuse 10 regard
D. as binding ON you In any manner.
Nhen Tie hp.dcrs Of city bonds charge
You with nm fcnsncc or misfnngnncp In
oilico In that you have nllSwcd the sink
ing mud pledged Tor the redemption of
their bonds 10 be Diverted and have
"honorcd drafts thereon for other pur.
poses and demand damages against YOU
and tho suretics on your official bond ON
account Of tie destruction of thpir seen.
riy, you Will not he heard by any court
sumtiouHl law.
, We could cite a largo number of an.
uoTflliea barring on these questions, In
addition 10 those already referred To. but
deem 1t unnecessary to do so
We alvlsc thai You refuse to honor
any dnit drawn upun you. us trcnsnrnr.
Tor me purposes Indicated Ia The report
OF the committee
HALL, TEMPEL 4 BAIL.