New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-05-12
TWENTY MILLION LESS
MR. wHAr,EN's OPINION REDUCES THE
ALLEGED EXCESS OF THE CITY
DEBT LIMIT.

THE coppoR ALTON COUNSEL. ADVISES Mr.. CoLER
THAT LIABILITIES FOR STREET OPENINGS
AND PARKS SHOULD NOT BE RE-
GARpED as WITHIN THE coSsTI-
TUTroNAL OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
FOR THE SCHOOLS.
CORPORATION Counsel Whalen yesterday sent 10
Controller Coer another opinion. the erect OF
which is to reduce by nearly s20.epcc the amount
by which the Controller recently reported that 'he
debt limit Of the city had been passed The opinion
IN brief was that the liabilities for street openings
and widenlngs and for parks, chargeable against
the Fund for Street and Park Openings should not
be regarded bearing upon the citys deot mint
This opinion apparently knocks the props iro"
under the whole Tammany scheme Tor e'oppi"s
public improvements. including the erection OF
many school buildings for which the admihiSoa-
ton OF Mayor Strong authorized bond issues
THE DEBT LIMIT SAFE.
With margin Of nearly s2oo'!ooo 1t can no
longer be contended that the debt limit OF the
former city Of New-York was passed when the
issues Of bonds authorized.
In the letter which Ashbel p Fitch. the former
Controller wrote about a week ago. ridding 'he
report Of Mr.. Coler upon the city's financial. con-
dition these statements were made as to the posi-
ton taken by Mr.. Golfer.
'In the first place. the contention OF the Con
troer il absolutely new. None OF his predeces-
sors in the Finance Department. none OF the as
tinguished lawyers who have been Counsel to the
Corporation no Mayor in considering the analrs OF
the city in his messages. has ever tried before TO
prove that the margin OF the citys liability must
ha affected by contracts running through many
future years and dependent for their result on ul
known quantities or by the purchase by 'he ci'y
of lands to be paid for by assessment on private
property and protected by the Fund for street ana
PARK Openings' which IS replenished from the
,ha levy
Is left ont OF consideration and the statement OF
the city's debt made every other ControHer
made IT, the old city was on December 81 1884,
inside the debt limit by sSe ~
TAMMANY on THE BACK TRACK
Anpsren,ly the Tammany officials saw light
when they read Mr.. Fitchs letter They mao oeeh
looking for light 10 guide them out or pi'lal'
They had not expected the overwhe Inning tempest
Of wrath which their scheme for discardng con-
tracts and stopping all public improvements
aroused among the people Of the CITY, ana since
they have been made painfully aware OF II the!
have shown a desire TO take the back track ne
Mayor has asked for information as 10 new scho0i
buildings for which contracts had been !et' appAr-
entity with the plan of authorizing the completion
y, tho buildings ~ way can be found TO raise the
money and now Mr. Whalen gives a beated de-
cision which will enable the officials 10 issue ooNus
already authorized and 20 ahead with the WORK
The opinion Of the Corporation Counsel which the
Controller received yesterday Is as ioi''o"''
Sir. am In receipt OF your communication pear
ing date April 90 calling my attention 70 cIass
OF condemnat ton proceedings concerning wiICn ~.
Of the awards should be included as part OF the
citys Indebtedness You refer 10 prVVesIt,Sn rd
stituted under the Street Opening acts ne So.
in which payable from the rune l ioT oree
and Park Openings ,u, rf's cave rise to the
creation OF this fund which recital Is entirely ac-
curate but need not be rel'era'eu III "''"''"e
your communicated
Won onallv ask whether liabilities % for street
o,sn,ngs and widcn!ngs and % for parks.
chsreeab]e against the Fund for Street and PARK
Openings should be regarded as Indebtedness OF
tnS S,'y viii remember tina, you Informed me that
you preferred ssung ySnr de Waiting for further
srmston in regard 10 this and other questions
az for the reasons stated by you prompt pun
IN 81 the letter to the Mayor you stated that
YOU assumed that the liabilities as 10 wh!ch you
nToys 1Sgre Of he consuton but VOW pointed
the difference which would he can9ed dn ny from the
debt the liabilities in question ...o..,or =,
did not seem 70 me that your letter OF Aprli 20
needed answer especially IN view Ok 'n noI IA
pass pass upon this and other questions. But as am
informed you still desire an answer to your com
take also this opportunity to again remind you
O. what stated plainly in my letter Of March 81
closely 10 the questions asked by you
Notwithstanding this. such eXiraordinarZ oe
auctions and differences have been drawn from that
letter Whose conclusions desire IN no respect 10
modify that again remind you una. IN an MS
am only responsible for advice given on the ex
goes so far and further than the question
asked .,,.....e,o. &,
your Communication Of April &c. have to say that
after giving the matter the sefous ion
absence of any decision 20 that enc, ~ tne
is no such decison). In my opinion, the liabilities Of
the fund In question do not form a part OF me
hfibition Of the Constitution This holding viii
make difference as appears by your on nv 81 a.
your computation OF the amount Of the debt which
Is prohibited By the Constitution
TO LOOK TO TIRE APPELLATE DIVISION.
In view of the fact Of the probability Of an early
decision by the Appellate Division. decision
which l will most earnestly seek promptly as
possible 1t is not necessary elaborate this ques-
ton. Blu; may say briefly that base my :pin-
ions upon the sections OF the portions cf the
charter which refer tC this fund and especially
upon the charter provision which denies to the
property owner right of action against the city.
and which RENTS him to the method of payment
procured under the charter. Greater New-York
There are also involved in this question consid-
crations pointed out in your letter. namely. that
the fund in '1 QUESTION acts not or me "unicpai
benefit. but as Il trustee for the people Of the
In the last of Longtime Of cases on ,his sub
jec REGARDING ,he power OF GdIrp9T3 h over
New-York is trustee in bnt general sense; that
public large" (The Mayor vs.. Fitch. Ninth
Appellate Division. 452)
base my opinion. therefore. upon two grounds:
First-That the liabilities in question cannot be the
subject Of action against the city ~ New York.
but are recoverable out Of special fund, and In a
special which distinctly excludes the ordi-
nary remedy by suit
Second-Upon the nature OF the use TO which the
acquired property is put .amey for the benefit Of
benefit OF a municipal corporation alone
therefore answer your question, that in my
opinion liabilities % for street openings and widen
ings and ~ for parks chargeable against the Fund
for Street and Park Openings. should not be re-
garded as Indebtedness OF the city OF NewYork.
VVfy no pSfi IN al