St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-13
CITY WILL WIN THE CASE
IF THE QUESTIONS PRoPoUNDED
TO THE LAWYERS GIVE
ANY HINT.
JONES GOES TO THE WALL.
NeighbOrhOOd of $780,
600.

d
ervoir injunction case this morning,
and from all appearances it will be
favorable TO the city of MINNEAPOLIS.
The judges have already ruled.
against the claim of the DIRECTORS
that the park certificates should be
included as Indebtedness, and, while
they have not indicated their Judi
clal opinion upon whether the city
owes the court house commissioners
anything yet, still those we'll posted
| say that there is hardly any cues
ton of the decision being favorable
TO the city on that point, as the
weight of the argument seems to be
on the side of the city attorney.
Ihere remain but two points on
which the judges have not indicated
how they stand. The first of these
is what they will determine as the
proper assessed valuation on which
TO compute the 5 per cent. and next.
should the cash in the sinking fund
aside from the bonds be deducted
from the debt.
II the judges rule favorably to the
city on either the point of valuation
or allowing the cash in the sinking
fund TO be deducted. then the ci1v's
SZUO,OOO reservoir bonds will be valid
and there will be left a margin of
$4,000 or more that can be used
Tor school or other purposes. and as
the bond margin is increasing each
year over 100000 per annun the
decision promises TO be important
10 the board of education. as we'll
as to the city officials.
MR. SIMPSON CONTINUES
City Attorney Simpson continued
MS argument at the opening OF court
yesterday morning. He introduced
many authorities to show the sound
ness OF the city's position, and each
held as a primal principle that a
DEBT was something for which there
must be taxation TO meet il: in other
words, a burden upon the TAXPAYER.
on that principle" said he. IF
II would require more than the
per cent of assessment to nav the
DEBT OF the city of MINNEAPOLIS to-
day, then We are above the limit
AS matter of fact, it would not re-
qulre that much TO pay it" Mr..
Simpson contended that the ci1v
when ii placed money in the hands
Of the sinking fund commissioners.
had lost all control of the money
and no city official had aught TO do
with it,
DO you contend that this money is
as much out of the hands of the
city as it would be were il in the
hands Of a trust company" asked
Judge Belden.
L do; yes, sir. Under the law that
is so. Because the sinking fund
commission happens to be the mayor.
city treasurer and Comptroller. does
not leave it in the hands of the city.
for these officials act as individuals
and not as officials"
He held that it was absolutely a h.
surd TO say that the bonds purchased
by the sinking fund were a debt.
The tax had already been levied and
collected, and there could not Dos
sibly be future taxation. The fact
that the commission had transferred
a portion of the funds to the bonds
did not add one cent more of taxa
ton to the taxpayers, nor did it
alter the financial standing OF the
city one iota- The money. had been
collected long ago, and was only in
vested in another way.
In answer to a question. the civ
attorney held that the sinking fund
was created to give the city a line of
credit Having the sinking fund al
lows fiuctuation when the neces-
sity arises. The law Of 1889 expressly
says that the debt shall be ascer-
tanned by deducting the sinking fund.
In the act Of 1895 there is nothing to
affect the sinking fund, for there is
no mention of it. The act of 1899
says that when we pay $1,000 out of
the sinking fund we have reduced
our Indebtedness by that amount.
and there is nothing in the act of 1893
to cOntrovert it.
COURT HOUSE AFFIDAVIT.
Mr.. Babcock introduced the affidavit
OF Secretary Charles Preston, of the
court house and city hall commits
sion. at THIS point, to show what had
already been spent on the city part
of the new court house. This the
affidavit indicated was S2O6. So. SO.
MIR. Atwa.er made a short talk in
which he held that a sinking fund had
but one purpose and that was 10 take
up the city bonds. The bondholders
so understood il when they purchased
the bonds. The intent of the law was
70 - -
a quasi-sinking fund He Iikened the
money secured by the water works
department 10 the park certificates.
and held that If the latter were special
Indebtedness there was no reason why
the former should not be.
Judge Koon followed on behalf of
the respondent He stated that the
language OF the complaint did not
permit of the introduction OF the affi-
davit of Mr.. Preston, yet it was plain
that the commission had no power
to create a debt for the city. The
only serious question was as to the
fund in the sinking fund As he under
stood II, the other side contended that
the law said there was a limit of in
! debtedness and when that limit was
| reached then there should be a halt
on any more debts being contracted
and that the whole Indebtedness should
be met by the sinking fund. This
| theory he held was palpably wrong.
Judge BabcOck, in closing for the Pc
titioners, tried to rebut their argu-
menfs. As to the assessed valuation
and the revolving fund, the court in
formed him that their minds were made
up. His arguments were confined
chiefly TO authorities which were sub
mitted as speedily as possible
Mr. Babcocl1 stated that his under
standing was that sinking fund bonds
could not be Cancelled. but must be
sold to meet the Indebtedness. The
court did not seem TO think so, how
ever, by its decision.
They can take $500, 600 of their own
money said Mr.. Simpson, pay them
selves and cancel the bonds That's