The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-06

operation of the law, which is limited by It's terms to cities of over six thou
 sand inhabitants? It seems to me. Mfr.
 President that the terms of the amend ment proposed by the gentleman from
 Lauderdale sufficiently cover the oues-
 tion and ought to be adopted.
 The gentleman from Lauderdale is
 the author in this Convention of this proposition of limiting the right of cities to create debts. I think he first | suggested 1t. I advocated it in the l opening remarks that I made before the Convention, and my mind was prompt
 ed to investigation along this line by hearing him discuss the question, and
 reading several papers on the susject | which he had delivered in other cities | in this country. He has advocated this
 restriction. but 1t seems that when | he has sought to enforce his views | along that line, some delegates have thought it such a good thing that they want to make the restrictions greater than seem prudent. It seems to me.
 MT. President and gentlemen of the Convention, that we should adopt the | substitute proposed by the gentleman from Lauderdale, and upon that move the previous question.
 Mir. Coleman (Greene) rose for recog-
 nition.
 MT. Knox-If the gentleman from
 Greene desires to discuss the question \ will withdraw the motion.
 MT. Sanford-Would not it necessarily | increase taxation if you have no limita- I tion upon the amount of indebtedness
 which they can contract? Will they l not have to increase taxation to meet that larger indebtedness, or go into l bankruptcy?
 Mir. Knox-I reply to that, MT. Pres ident. by saying that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lauder dale does limit the power to create debts | except that it does not limit 1t with reference to laying sewers, purchasing water works, and with reference to street improvements and it seems to me that the people of these different cities will be able to place sufficient limitation upon the law-making power to protect themselves on that point. When the city of Montgomery purchas- ed the water works here, 1t was com- petent for the people of Montgomery to have expressed their views on that question, and had it been contrary to the wishes of the city of Montgomery and its people. doubt not the purchase would not have been made.
 MT. Jones (Mont ntgomery)-Nearly all
 
 purchase.
 MT. Sanford-They were in favor of that because it was no burden. Mir. Knox-There is another clause in the Article reported by the Committee on Municipal Corporations which re- stricts the issue of bonds, except by a vote of the city that makes 1t. That is a sufficient limitation, and we should not make an iron-clad rule that will hamper our cities in the future. I move the previous question.
 The President pro tem.-Will the gentleman from Calhoun allow the present presiding officer to retire to his desk to offer a little short amend ment before that is done?
 The President resumed the chair.
 MT. Cunningham-I ask unanimous consent to offer this little bit of an amendment to the original proposition offered by MT. Weakley. It will cause no debate, but it is pregnant with facts and prospects. "Amendment-After the words Gadsden, insert the word Ems ley"
 MT. Cunnfngham-I hope there is no
 There being none. the amendment was allowed.
 Mir. Cunningham took the chair.
 Mir. Coleman (Greene)-The honor able President of this Convention com- mended the delegate from Lauderdale for having been the first person to sug- gest limitation upon the tax rate of the cities. We accepted that sugges- tion with great applause, but the amendment now offered by him shows that suggestion was a promise made but to be broken in performance.
 Under the statement of the delegate who last addressed you, he says we ought to assume that there are going to be other cities in the State of Ala bama, and that they should be pro- vided for. MT. President and delegates of tine Convention, 1t is in anticipation that those cities will grow up in our State that we resist this unlimited pow CT of taxation. We have heard from delegates from these cities the condi- tion that they are in, and what need they have for greater taxation, and it is to provide against that emergency and that contingency that we wish to place 8 limit upon the power of taxa tion for cities hereafter to come. It seems to me 1t will not be out of place at this time to explain what perhaps Is not realized by every member of this Convention as to these arguments which have been made in favor of tax ing property owners abutting sidewalks
  vails in this State the rate of taxation could not exceed the value of the i'm provements added to the abutting own CTS. You could assess the abutting owners. but you were controlled by the increased valuation made by the im- provements, and there was equity in that provision, and I have heard no voice against 1t. but when the argu- ment is made before this Convention that we should stand by the decisions of the courts, and that legislators should always recognize the decisions Of the courts, 1t suggests a very dan gerous proposition. To my mind, courts should be governed by the Leg islators, and bS conventions, and when ever the court detects a deficiency in the law, and points out he hardships that may operate against the citizens of a State by reason of the defect in the law, 1t becomes the duty of the Legislature. or body creating the or ganic law, to provide against the de- position and unjust burdens.
 Under the late decision of the Su- preme Court. 1t has been said that you may sell all the property adjoin- ing these improvements for the cost. That is the proposition you are now confronted with. Not the one which we supposed prevailed in Alabama, that you could increase the tax up to a point that it enhanced the value, but the whole property may be subjected to the cost. Now, when the courts an- nounced the proposition of that kind, 1t