Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-01-09

interest upon or redeem said bonds for
which 1t was provided" and that said
provisions. being 30 antagonlstlc, one
to the other, one destroys the other, and
the city Is thereby left without authority
10 make the investment proposed. When
the purpose proposed TO be accomplished
by said section Is taken into considera-
u0n' that is, To- provide means whereby
the city wou.d be prepared aud enabled
At the maturity OF its bonded
obligation to liquidate the same.
there Is to my mind no conflict
whatever In the several provisions of
the said sections The Investment of
tho. sinking fund in interest bearing Sc
curitics can in no sense said to be divert
ing or drawing upon said fund for
purpose other than the redemption of the
bonds, and when the treasurer honOrs
drafts made on snid fund for the pur-
pose Of such Investment, he can in no
sense be said to honor drafts for pur-
pose other than to redeem said bonds,
provided said investment, when made,
be placed with him in the treasury Of
the city in the lieu and stead of the
money Of said fund.
In fact, when he pays a draft out Of
said fund, made for the purpose of invest
ing the same in interest bearing securi-
ties TO be placed with him in lieu Of said
fund, he Is doing an act directly in
the line of redeemiug said bonds, and
such act can no more be said 10 be diver
sion Of said fund or honoring drafts for
other purpose than TO redeem the same,
than could fine conversion by the trens-
urer Of two five dollar bills Of said fund
into ten dollar bill, or the exchange %
ten dollar bill Of said fund for Ten
dollars in gold, be a diversion of snid
fund. II II was proposed by plaiufT
upon the c9nsummation Of said invest
ment of said sinking fund IN said bonds
10 withdraw such bonds from the custody
of the treasurer, and place thcm else
where than in rs treasury then a differ
ent question might arise; but this is not
proposed TO be done, and the city treas
urcr after the Investment Is made still
holds and keeps the whole of the sinking
fund committed to his charge as fully
and completely as he lid prior to said in
yostment.
II seems TO me that undue prominence
has been given in the case TO the fact
that warrants were drawn on said fund.
which the treasurer was required to
pay. presume that said warrants were
drawn simply as matter of convenience.
and possibly for the sake of proper book
Keeping, in the modus operandi of carry
ng out the investment sought by the
city 70 be made. The same object
could have been accomplished, and the
sauc principle OF law would have been
involved had the city, instead of draw
ing warrants, simply passed an order no.
utying the treasurer Of the investment
they had contracted for, and requiring
him to carry out said contract by n1vn
TO the holder Of said bonds upon their de
livery to him. the amount contracted to
be paid therefor, and thereafter placing
the bonds so received by him 10 the
credit Of the proper sinking fund
Defendant further contends that the
conSummniion of the proposed invest.
ment, which Is now presented iw
lusdl OF the treasurer TO pay the money
therefor would work a great hardship
and wrong upon the Taxpayers sf Tie
city Of Fort Worth. A sufficient answer
To this contention would be that il IA
a matter with which the defenll M m,
nothing TO do whatever. BY the cleo
ron OF the people, and by the law. the
MANAGEMENT of the city finances as has
been heretofore shown. Is committed to
me city council and not to him. Shnuld
the city council see fit 10 purchase for
its tre department horse. and by order
properly made directed the treasurer nu
Ol us general iula 400 ray therefor the
sum Of two hundred dollars, could tho
treasurer be heard TO object and refus
To pay the same because in his opinion,
and in fact, said horse was not worth
tANAN ihllH uut huuhNeu uoldfsf OF, should
1t buy for It's water works. and contract
10 pay ten thousand dollars for an iia
r0tus. which. in the opinion OF the treas
1rer. and In fact. was not worth lnor,i
than cghy Thousand dollars. Is is the PROV
nee OF the treasurer to object. and could
',' Nn heNrl 70 refrsa 10 nay tile draft
drawn on him for such purpose2 thnl.
.,JD natll 40 tact the bond, In which the
city council propose 10 make said invest.
ment be worth the amount they contract
TO pay for the same land so far as this
case is concerned the court must pre-.
sumo that they nre) then instead OF
said Investment working an injury to
the taxpayers of the city, Il inures very
materially TO their benefit
They have no more increst to pay on
the bonds purchased than tLey would
have had TO pny had they been allowed
20 remain in the hands Of their present
owners, II said Investment Is not made
sucl. interest SO paid for them goes TO
said holder aud said taxpayers derive no
benefit therefrom; but when they are
purchased and put into the treasury as
fn integral part OF tie sinking fund
such interest irures indirectly at leas;