The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-09-28

upon the municipal authorities. in this re-
gard. additional to those provided In the
Constitution.
COUNCILS POWER
Section 30 is as follows: The Common
Council shall have power to borrow money
to an amount not exceeding ? per cent. of
the taxable property of such city. as the
same may appear upon the tax duplicate
of such city for the year in which such loan
shall be effected: Provided, That the en-
tire money borrowed shall not at any time
exceed ? per cent. Of the value of the taxa
bic property of such city. Such loans may
be made only for the purpose of procuring
money to be used i'm the legitimate exercise
of the corporate powers of such city and
for the payment of legitimate corporate
debts
Section 30 is as follows: Temporary
loans may be authorized by ordinance of
the Common Council in anticipation of the
revenue of the city for the current and fol-
lowing year. and payable within that pc
riod. but the aggregate amount of such
temporary loan in any fiscal year shall not
exceed the amount of the city tax levy for
the same year. No temporary or other loan
upon the revenue of any current or sue
ceeding year shall be made until all tenn
porary loans upon the revenue of any pre-
ceding year shall be fully paid
The provisions of Section SO pertinent to
this discussion are, % that the Council
may not borrow money TO an amount eA-
ceeding . per cent. of the taxable properly
of such city; as the same may appear rom
the tax duplicate Of such city for the year
IN which such loan shall be effected' ana
(2) that the entire money borrowed snaIl
not at any time exceed ? per cent. OF the
taxable property of such city.
1T will be observed that while the Con-
stitutiOn provides that the. 2 per cent; nm
- = -Nl 70 tho total va Dlp Of
the taxable property, to be determined by
the last assessment, this language was not
followed in Section 30. In that secron t.e
legislative intention is expressed In Two sets
of words. BY the first 1T Is declaTeu thdt
the 2 per cent. is TO be applied TO the TAXA
the tax dnf4iicate of such city for the year
in which such loan shall be made, Whlle III
the. next sentence 1T is provlded I maj nme
entire amount OF money borrowed shaH not
at any time exceed : per cent. OF the TAXA
BILE property of such city; -
1T is claimed that because the tax
duplicate of 1901 is not yet made up, the
computation must be made upon the tax
duplicate of 1900. But this contention cali
scarcely be maintained by either provision
of Section 50.
The first clause refers explicitly to the
tax duplicate for the year in whlch such
loan shall be effected. 1t follows that II
the loan is effected in the year 1901. the
computation referred TO must be based on
the duplicate for that year, and not some
other year. The fact that the duplicate
for 1901 has not yet been made might cause
some difficulty were il not for the con-
text. which declares that the total amount
borrowed shall not exceed 2 per cent: OF
the taxable property of the city. Now.
the amount of the taxable property OF the
city is readily ascertained by the official
report of the assessment for 1901, which
has been made as required by law. That
amount is s129, $50, 925. and is the amount
which must go upon the duplicate for the
year 1901.
Let us see where we would be led by the
contention that the computation must not
be made on the known amount of taxable
property IN the city; The county auditor
duplicate for 1901 until the 1st day of July,
and is not required to complete the same
until the last day of December, 1901, Oh
which date he is required to deliver a copy
TO the treasurer. In case the duplicate Is
not finished until the last day of December
in any year. then. no matter what the
emergency, no temporary loan could be
made in that year, for there would be no
duplicate for the year in which the loan
is effected in existence until after the
year had elapsed. 1t will scarcely be
claimed that it was the legislative purpose
that such a construction should be placed
on that section. Taking the section as a
whole, and constituting all its provisions in
the light of the constitutional inhibition on
the same subject, we should have no diff
ficulty in reaching the conclusion that the
2 per cent. limitation should be applied to
the total amount of taxable property in the
city as shown by the official return of the
assessing officer for the year in question,
w lAl1h dAllOhlAI nus Dt l11 VII IhS "a
duplicate for that year-an amount which
may possibly be increased by the addition
of omitted property but which cannot pos
But assuming that this is not the proper
basis, and that the 2 per cent. limitation
must be applied to the tax duplicate of last
year, we find that the assessed valuation of
property for that year, as appears from
said duplicate, was $126,675 .040. Two per
cent. of this is $3.50, 500. so, or a sum of $112,-
900.@ in excess of the total debt and also
in excess of the temporary loan proposed.
DUPLICATE DIMINISHED.
cit is suggested, however. that the total
amount of the duplicate of 1900 was dimin-
ished by the deduction of 1922, O1O for mort
gage rebates under the provisions of. the
statute of March 4, 1899, and that therefore
the 2 per cent. limit should be applied to
the sum Of $123, 753, 03O, that being the
amount remaining after the deduction. This
position is entirely untenable. The act Of
1899. referred to, has been declared to be in
valid by the judgment of the Circuit Court
of Marion county, which Judgment has not
been reversed, and is, therefore, of binding
force IN this jurisdiction. Several. lawyers
of distinguished ability had pronounced the
act in question unconstitutional before it
was passed upon by the court, and think
there is no doubt in the mind of any WELL
informed attorney as to the correctness of
the courts ruling. 1t is clear, therefore,
that the amount of the mortgage rebates
should not be considered, and that the tax
duplicate of 1900 must be held to amount to
$126.67 ,040. But if the mortgage rebate law
OF 1899 were held to be valid, the situation
would be unchanged. That act provides
that mortgageors may have the amount of
such mortgage indebtedness, not exceeding
$500, dedecuted from the assessed valuation
OF mortgaged premises, for that year
If the basis OF computation is the as
sessed valuation as it must appear upon
the tax duplicate, such assessed valuation
would not be affected by any subsequent
deductions in the form of rebates. 1t.
therefore, seems plain that whether the
basis of computation be the tax duplicate
of 1Q01 or that of 1Q0n thorn nnn he No