The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-08-25
THEY MUST PAY THE INTEREST
COUNCIL REFUSES TO RELIEVE
PROPERTY OWNERS.

pOrt-City Attorney Said Council
Had No Legaf Right to Remit the
Interest.
The City Council refused last
night to relieve the Liberty
street property owners from the
interest on the assessments for paving that
street over which there was so much It'll
CATION and which have been sustained
by the Supreme Court.
This action was taken upon the report
OF the finance committee reporting adj
versely to the request on the ground that
the city could not legally refund the in
terest This opinion was given by City At
! torney Adams, who, upon request, made
a further statement with regard to the
matter before Council.
The report Of the finance committee on
this subject is as follows:
Savannah, Ga, August "a, 189S-To the
| Honorable The Mayor and Aldermen of
! the City of Savannah:-The committee on
finance to whom has been referred the
petition Of Thomas Ballantyne and others,
before Council at it's meeting of the 10th
inst, asking that they be relieved from
| the interest on the executions issued
against them for The Improvement of Lib
erty street, are constrained to report ad-
versely TO this petition. The committee is
advised and believe that they have no
legal right 10 grant the petition. Under
the Act of the Legislature passed in 1889,
it is provided that executions of this char
acter shall bear interest at the rate of
/ ~.
time fixed by law for issuing the same"
and the Supreme Court of Georgia has
! held in a unanimous decision, concurred
| in by all of the six judges, in the case
with Mr.. Bacon, which has been made a
test case, that the city is entitled to in
| terest on the amount due, at least from
! the date of such execution" So that, I'M
der the plain language of the statute and
the adjudication of the courts, this inter-
est is absolutely due, as much so as Is
the principal. and we cannot see how we
have any more right to surrender the in
terest than any part of the principal. We
understand that the Council of the city
may compromise a doubtful claim, where
the right to the claim, or the solvency of
| the party against whom it is held, Is
doubtful. Such compromises may be re-
quired by business eXpediency. We, how
ever, in these cases cannot see any rea-
the principles of compromise applicable
The claims are due, with interest, under
the adjudications of the court. The city
has lien upon the property and there
can be no doubt as to the collectibilty of
the claims If the city, therefore, were to
surrender any part of the principal, or in
terest, it would simply be donating the
citys money, and we are not prepared to
recommend this. Indeed we do not see
how we have the legal, or moral, right to
make such donation. If the petition were
granted, those property owners who
| promptly paid the city's claims might
well petition that the city make allowance
to them for the interest that they have
been deprived of and of which the city
has got the benefit In the use of their
money.
We recognize that the payment of these
executions may not be easy to some of
the petitioners, but this is frequently true
of every form of taxation, and, if the in
terest account seems large, it is due to the
fact that these property owners have pro-
tracted the litigation and have asked for
| concessions only after they have exhaust
ed the courts and failed finally, in their
efforts to prevent the collection of any
part of these executions. Assuming that
they are correct in their position (even
those who petitioned for this pavement
two months before council took any ac-
tom that they had the right to test their
OBJECTIONS to these executions in
the courts 1t seems to us that
they cannot complain If they meet
the usual fate of unsuccessful lit
igants in being compelled, at the end
of the litigation, to pay not only the prin-
cipal of the citys claim, but also the in
terest that they knew was running on
when this litigation was being protracted.
1t may not be amiss for the committee
to call attention to the fact that these
petitioners have not been over-charged
under the law, and that the bills against d.
them show that they have been fairly and
justly dealt with. The question as to
whether they have been over-charged has
been submitted 10 two different juries
who have promptly found in the citys
favor. Speaking of this last verdict, which
finds for the city the full amount of the
execution with interest, and which is the
verdict which petitioners are now called
upon to pay, the six judges of our Su-
prapoa Uourt unanimously hold that HtNa