The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-08-31

council committee having in charge the
proposed refund of the cIty's bonded In
debtedness, City Solicitor Nesbltt gave
IN opinion that redemption of bonds
could not, in accordance with the law,
begin in less than ten years. Mr..
Maxwell, of the committee, differed,
and the solicitor was instructed to in
yestlgate further and invoke the assist
ance of other able counsel. AT last
nights meeting OF the committee, the
solicitor reiterated his opinion, and
submitted u letter he had received
from Mr.. Henry NJ. Russell, In which
that eminent authority took the same
view as the solicitor.
This did away with the possibility Of
issuing 1870 bonds, and the necessity Of
1880 or 1924 bonds faced the commit
tee. At first there was fear that
the people would not favor so long a
delay in the starting of reducing the
principal of the loan, but during the dis
cusslon it was shown that sinking
fund Ito be Invested In city bonds)
would take away in measure the OBJ
jecuonal feature of the 1920 bond, and
in addition 1t was brought out that the
provisions In the Legislative enactment,
under which the water board acts,
would make It Inadvlsahle to include in
the refund the $4,000 Indebtedness of
the water board, and that the $4,000
electric lighting bonds and S69,5OO stone
bridge bonds, too, could not be includ-
ed. This relieved the refund OF $26O,5OO
Of the original S6S5. 700 which 1t had been
proposed to refund, and left the refund
at S425,2OO. Although there will be no
payment Of principal on refund bonds
for ten years (unless Indirectly by the
sinking fund.-, yet the paying of Of the
water boards Indebtedness and OF the
two series Of bonds mentioned as not
included in the refund, will continue
along as usual, and the refund advo-
Gates believe that prejudiced and In
terested opponents of the scheme can
not attack the measure along the lines
of the campaign against the proposed
refund of two years ago. when it was
alleged that the city was postponing the
payment OF its Indebtedness.
After discussing the matter at some
length. in the course of which the be-
lief was expressed by the committee
that refund along these lines would
meet with public favor, the city sole
itor was instructed to prepare draft
of a refund ordinance which will be
submitted to the committee at meet
Ing to be called by Chairman swee-
ney.
Mr.. Maxwell! summarized the situa-
ton concisely when he said that one of
three things must be done to relieve the
city: First, the issuing of new bonds
next year; second, an increased tax
levy, or, third, a refund. The commit
tee favors the refund for several rea-
sons. The situation next year includes
the meeting OF $4,000 Of compromise
bonds, bearing three per cent interest.
II they are defaulted on the interest
goes up to six per cent until they are
redeemed, and such an outcome Is, Of
course, not desired by the committee
or by anyone. OF the three remedies
suggested by Mr.. Maxwell, new bond
issue to meet the obligations on the
compromise bonds would be only stav-
ing of the obligation. and the heavier
tax ley, naturally, would raise a storm
of opposition, so it comes down to the
refund, which, Its supporters point out.
would not only relieve the situation, but
would incidentally bring about a ma
terial saving in interest to the city
The routine proceedings Of the COM
mlttee in detail are as follows:
When the committee was called to
order ut 8 o'clock by Mayor Sweeney
there were present Councllmen Chew,
Korn, Maxwell and McMechen. City
Solicitor Nesbltt reiterated his opinion
given at the last meeting of the COM
msttee, that the redemption of the
bonds can not begin in less than ten
years. Acting under instructions from
the committee, Solicitor NesbItt had
invoked the opinion of Henry NJ. Rus
sell. whose letter to the solicitor Is as
follows:
WHEELING, W. Va, Aug. 30.
Mr.. Frank Nesbltt. City Solicitor. City.
DEAR sIR:-A careful examination
nj tho constitutional and statutory pro-
visions relating TO the issuing OF bonds
nv the city has brought me to the fol-
lowing conclusions:
The bonds Issued by the city cannot
fRny of thcnl be made payable In less
than ten years from their date.
The provision that the bonds shall
not be made payable less than ten
years after date cannot be evaded by
providing that the city may within tho
Ten years redeem all or any humber OF
the bonds.
reason for the fixing by the Legislature
OF this minimum period for the pay
ment or redemption OF bonds. There
are obvious reasons why a maximum
period should be provided for and the
law seems to be quite az plain and I'M
cqulvocal with respect to the one az "a
the other. Not only does the eighth
section az the act lSl2-3 declare In plain
words that the bonds shall be payable
In not less than ten nor more thaH
thlrty-four years after date, but there
are also other provisions In the statute
which manlrcstly contemplate that q
considerable time shall elapsc between
the Issue Of the bonds and the payment
or redemption Of any Of them.
In the first section NJ the act II is
provided TINT the city shall not issue or
sell IT. bonds without At the same time
providing for The collection OF direct
ANIMAL fnx uWclcnt 10 pay annually