The record-union., 1899-01-17
THOSE PURCHASED SO BONDS
MAYOR LAND EXPLAINS HIS
ACTION.
= Message That Was Read at the
City Trustees Meeting Last
Evening.

At last nights session of the CITY
Trustees the following message was re-
ceiyed from Mayor Land in relation TO
the purchase of city bonds of 1888, con-
cernang which so much has Of late been
said:
Sacramento, Jan. IL, 1899.
To the Board of Trustees of the City
Of Sacramento: Much has been said by
certain members of your honorable
board and by the press of this. city
relative to the action of the Funded
Debt Commissioners and myself in pur-
chasing certain city bonds which Iell
due in the year 1883. In view of the
fact that the statements made by SAID
members of your honorable body may
be accepted as true by some OF our cltl-
zens who do not thoroughly undef-
stand the matter, leaving them with
the erroneous impression that our ac-
tion was inadvisable and calculated to
injure the interests of the city and It's
taxpayers, deem it proper to say that
no action was taken by US until AFTER
thorough consideration of the legal as
pect and the sound business policy OF
the proposed action. Mature delibera-
tion, had with a view of advancing the
prospects and conditions of our tax
payers, rather than of retarding II,
prompted the action taken; and l am
convinced that the course pursued
greatly benefited instead of injured the
city.
Prior to the purchases made by the
Funded Debt Commissioners which
have been criticised there were out
standing, approximately, about S2Oa-
Coo of 1883 bonds The cases of Ken
daI vs. Porter (Treasurer), and Bates
VS.. Porter (Treasurer), in, which case
the law firm of Bishop & Wheeler and
Holl & Dunn had been retained as
special counsel by the city, prior to my
induction into office, were pending, ana
involved the validity of these bonds,
and the question whether they, even If
valid, bore interest after maturity.
In the first case, the Supreme Court
in bank held that these bonds did bear
interest after maturity; and subse-
Quently, in the same case, on a rehear-
ing, after full argument by the regular
and bpecial counsel for the city, and
after the case had, from the standpoint
of the city, been by them exhaustively
and ably briefed, the Supreme Court
adhered to it's first decision.
Some few months ago the second
case, Bates VS.. Porter, the title being
changed to Bates VS.. Frost (Treas-
urer1, was tried before Superior Judge
Joseph w. Hughes. This case. like
the former, involved the validity of the
bonds of 1858, and also the same ques
ton whether interest must be paid up
on them after their maturity. At the
trial the firm of Bishop & Wheeler and
Holl & Dunn appeared for the city.
f. Mier, taxpayer, at the instance of
the city's counsel, interviewed in the ac-
ton, setting up all the defenses that
ingenious counsel, learned in the law,
could devise, and the fullest. defense
that the city could make was pre-
sented.
On October 20, 1898. Judge Hughes.
In a very clearly written opinion, which
was published in the papers of that
date. following the decision of the SUI
preme Court in the case of Kendall VS..
Porter, and other decisions heretofore
rendered in the litigation over our
bonds, decided fatty that the 1883
bonds were valid claims against the
city, and bore interest after their ma
turity.
Thereupon. confronted by these legal
decisions against the city, in view of
the facts that our case was practically
hopeless; that the Supreme Court had
already decided the questions involved
against US; that the Superior Court had
lately done likewise; that the special
counsel for the city, Bishop & Wheeler
and Holl & Dunn. had but little faith
in the city's cause. as was evidenced
by their Willingness, the one firm to
accept 81 eco in lieu of the contingent
fee of $25, ,0C0 to be received by them
in the event of their success, and the
other firm 5000. instead OF their con-
tingent fee of $1,000; that the litiga-
year and a half or two years more be-
fore 1t ended, and that in the mean
time interest on these 1888 bonds
would accumulate at the rate of 81 900
per month: and that the city had
money in its Golfers sufficient to pay
off these bonds, with accrued interest,
we concluded, for the best interest of
the city and its taxpayers. that the
coming tax levy to be fixed this fall
might be greatly lessened, and as a
sound business proposition that it was
advisable to pay off as quickly as pos
sible these obligations and accordingly
we made the purchases and redemp-
tions referred to.
BY this action I have during the past
year saved the city the sum of S13 200
in interest. and will save this year to