The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-05-05
The ISSUING OF CITY BONDS.
An important opinion Rendered BY city.
Attorney Meredith.
10 Be USED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES,
NoAuthoriiy for Spending Mo ney IN tue
City Treasury Until After the Bonds
.Have Been sold-The Full ,rext
ofthe Opinion.

What is thought TO be one OF tie most
important opinions which the CITY Al
torney has submitted 10 the Common
Council for a long time. was laid be fore
that body last night. 1t involves tho
question as TO whether money can oe
paid out OF the city treasury TO be nv
placed by money derived from the sair
of city bonds, and as 20 whether bonds
issued for certain purposes, according TO
ordinances authorizing same, can be sold.
and the money appropriated 10 any other
purpose. The question has also been
raised, whether or not the appropriations
made out of the proceeds OF bonds. which
were issued in 1896. and which had not
been sold prior to April Q, 1887, have
not been cancelled by the ordinance cam
ceiling appropriations for 1896. and max
Ing appropriations for is91.
Below will be found the city Attorneys
opinion which will be OF general interest
TO the citizens of Richmond:
a SPECIFIC CASE
"Aprfl 60 1897.
'vro tho Common Council OF the City OF
Richmond:
"In reply to your resolution of April
e6. 1897. inqulring whether the ordinance
of April O. 1897 cancelling the appropria-
tions of 1896. has the effect OF canceliing
the appropriations heretofore made ont
of the proceeds of bonds II the said bonds
had not been sold previous TO the said
9th day of April. 1897 | have 10 say that
7 have been Informed that your resoIu-
tion was intended TO apply 20 n certain
resolution approved June 3. 1895. author
izing the sale OF certain bonds. the pro-
ceeds thereof 10 be placed TO the account
of sewers. | shall. therefore, answer
your inquiry as II II were intended TO ap-
| ply only TO the last mentioned resolution.
otherwise | would be unable TO answer N.
because my answer In each case would
have 10 depend on the language OF each
resolution authorizing the sale OF bonds.
rife RESOLUTION REPEALED.
1T is true that the resolution OF tho
| hitter date authorized the doirg OF two
| thires. viz:
"First the snlc Of bonds. and second
w. tho placing Of the proceeds OF sale
to the amount OF sewers But an. OF
opinion that the proceeding was Intended
10 he regarded as an entirety. for tho
rcuprll e. not H. the habit OF artforiz-
ing the sale of bonds except for the ex-
press purpose OF using the proceeds
thereof for ~ouic specific object. II Is
cviden, then that II the proceeds are not
to De used for the construction of sew
ffS nc ctlt OF the IDlNH NOtib itt w
IN accord with IN" cbscct and intention
of said resolution of June =. 1896, Had
the bords been sold and the money been
| In the treasury 10 The credit OF sewers
| on The 9th day OF April. 1891 II would
| have been covered INTO the treasury by
| the ordinance OF that date. The fnilurc
| 20 sell cannot prevent result which
| would have followed hat the bonds been
sold am therefore OF opinion that tho
| said ordinance OF April .. 1877, repeals
| the resolution ,f June ;, 1896.
NOT UNTIL TREY ARE SOLD.
I'm reply TO your second inquiry. 7
| have 10 say that where the Council au-
| thorized the sale of tonds and the pro-
| goods 10 be used for specific purposes, no
authority il given In usc any money I'm
| the city t,ensury until tho said bonds
| have been sold or a sufficient amount tn
| paw for such warrants as shall be drawn
| .r payment Of tho work authorized 10 be
| paid TOR out OF the roceeds ~ sale OF
saiG bonds.
,siened) 80 v. MEREDITH.
"City Attorney"
| II Is not known Mat will b. III" ef-
| fs.t OF this opinion o. whether the coun-
| ei Win reconsider ceItair measures. or
| make additional appropriations so as 20
| suaishten out matters.