Barre evening telegram. (Barre, Vt.) 1898-19??, 1900-07-16
123z22sl l72:lEIz5

The individual gives his note to
borrow sum Of money. what an
ference does it make ia sight OF the
law what he does with the money?
Is it not debt all the same'
Now the city stands in the same
relation to it's order as does the indi-
yidual to his note. In either case
does the law goes back of thcnote to
inquire what is done with the money:
Certainly the city gave it's two notes
to borrow the 1925, 600 just as 1T gave
it's other two notes to borrow the
other money. What difference
therefore, does it make in face of the
law whether the city spends the
money borrowed in the one case or IN
the other, or in both cases, to finish
the opera house, to build school
houses, to improve streets, to pay
lawyers, to pay water experts, to
pump water from Stevens branch, or
whether yet the city sinks the whole
money in Peck Pond, or buries it at
East Barre? In each and every sup
posed case this money is a debt all
the same, the city must pay the
debt, and the money expended must
bA reckoned in making up the debt
limit. Only the water bonds are the
water debt proper, and they are not
included.
How now, about the taxes of ST.
100. 20. They were due June 10,
1900. They have not been paid. No
warrant is in existence for their pay
ment. They are therefore as much
the city debt as any other obligation.
1t is certain, therefore, in this mat
ter of debt limit that the two orders
making $25, 900, and the state tax
81, 1O0.2O, must both be included.
Still other Indebtedness, which ! did
not reckon in my previous estimate,
might also be properly included. For
instance, the unpaid warrants in the
city clerk S Office. ordered paid be-
tween March and June 20. 1900.
This would increase the city debt
hundreds, if not thousands of dollars
over and above my former estimate
made.
Certain it is, therefore, that on
June 30, the city debt, exclusive of
the water debt. and exclusive of the
Indebtedness incurred in anticipation
of taxes, was and is, even more than
$3.50, 952. II. Certain it is that the
debt limit by law is S2lS, l2s. 26. Ger
tain it is that our city debt already cX-
ceeds the limit fixed by law more than
Sl2, S24.9l. Certain it is that the vote
passed at the city meeting June %, to
run the city into an additional debt of
$l3, 600, 600 or more, was and is illegal
Certain it is that, should the city
council, under the authority of that
vote, purchase the library lot in qucS-
tion, that purchase would be illegal.
Certain it is that, should the city
council assess tax of 10 cents on the
dollar of the grand list to make pay
mcnt in part for that illegal purchase,
the tax itself would be illegal, and
would innoculatc with its poison our
whole tax system and render this
years taxes illegal. That 10 cents on
the dollar has not yet been assessed.
II it is assessed, in my judgment it
will be fatal mistake.
The only way out of this whole di-
lemma, 1T seems to me, is to let the
matter rest as it is. Wait until the
city debt is reduced below the debt
limit sufficiently to warrant the pro-
posed additional increase. Then, if
it is deemed best, call another city
meeting and pass legal vote to pur-
chase the library lot. Then taxes to
pay for the same can be legally assess
ed, and we can do the whole business
in a solid way.
know not what others may think.
| know not how Others may act, but
as for myself, | can stand only on this
basis, and from this basis only can l
act.
HARVEY HEEsEY.