The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-06

tae muricipalities to pay the debts thes contract.
 MP. towels It not true that the | debt limit which you seek to dx fl l for the protection of the creditor end not of the debtorf
 i Mfr. walker-Yes, and for the good naa,e of the municipality.
 ! aIr. Lowe-But 1t is for the protee-
 tirr If the moneyed interests-the cred- I itorS.
 Mir, wslker--No, sir, 1t Is for the prots ctioh of both. It is for the pro-
 tection Of the municipality and for the rrotecticn of the good name and tha | CT ,6it Of the people of Alabama.
 Mr Piilans--Are we to understa and | that the gentleman apprehends tha | amendment offered by the gen.'-n, a from Larderdale is putting lIgh' ing l plants In this class of objects for which there is no limitation?
 | Mfr. Walker-That was my impress sion.
 Mir. Pnlsns--I want to call the g. n- tlercan's attention to the fact thst lighting plans are expressly cut off. It l Is only sewers, water works and strset | Improvements.
 Mr. Walker-{Now. the gentleman
 froT Lauderdale speaks of stranyulat- ing the municipalities of Alabama. | Alabama has had some experience in strangled municipalities and counties and how have they been ,strangulated l By the possession of an unlimited power to create debts. Have you ever heard of . municipality, county, city, | town or village. being strangulated by not being permitted to 60 into debt have not. Look at the histocy of Alabama and you see strangul ated cnns iffae hut ,nss &L~k have tied the rope around their neck 8 with an unlimited power to create debts. That is the way to strangulate the communities and municipalities of the State, to allow the present to mort gage the future beyond the capacity
 to pay. I submit this Is an i'm, ort- ant question and that this Convention should lift its hand and prevent the possibility of that which bas been done in the past being done in :he future.
 MT. Macdonaid-I do not know whether the proposition I propose to
 make Is in order at present. As I un-
 deistand there is tho seesion as re- ported by the Committee and d sub stitute offered by the gentleman from
 Lauderdale to the report of the Com
 mittee and an amendment 70 that of-
 fereo by the gentleman from Macison
 Is that the situation of affairs?
 Tn President pro tenn (Mr. Cunning
 ham)-Ghe parliamentary status ia
 this: The original substitute of the
 gentleman from Lauderdale by unan-
 imous consent of the Convention has
 been withdrawn and in lieu thereof
 ne onered substitute, which has been an amendment offered by the yertie.
 man from Madison, which is the n,ad- ing question. ' '-~
 MT. Walker-Mine was offered az a substitute for the Section as reoo.te
 by the Committee and all amend
 ments. 1
 The President pro :em--And furtrner amendment is not In order.
 MT. Macdonald-Briefiy propose to address myself to and hereafter to oner another amendment to the suh- stitute offered by the gentleman from [ iLauderdale. '''A'
 The special objection I had n inc original substitute and which has not
 been obviated or to the slightest la. req cEanged by this new substitute ls :he taclt-I might say direct-perniss!,n 10 municipalities to place upon prop- eI.v anuttfng upon streets upon which sidewalks have been made or sewsrs constructed, the entire cost of these alleged improvements.
 On Wednesday my friend from Mont gomery (Mr. Graham), in a rather heated speech, called the attention of the convention to what he was pleased so term my unavailing attempts to light such assessments in the co,,rts of this State, and in the course of his re- marks he fell into an error, uninten. tlonally, l suppose, in stating that the supreme Court of this State and of other States in which this matter had come up, had lately decided the oues- ton adversely to the contention I had made. Now this Is not the fact. The cases that he alluded to began in the City Court of Montgomery on the equity side of the court. The judge of that court, in decree rendered in the Birdsong case, which was the first case brought in that court. decided in my favor That judge, tban whom no wiser. abler or more learned judge sits upon the bench in Alabama or in the United States, for that matter, decided every proposition in favor of the tax payer. He decided that such assess ments for sidewalk purposes, the en- tire cost of which was assessed against abutting property owners, were in- valid. He Furthermore decided that all assessments predicated on an arbitrary basis of front footage of property were null and void under the chaxter of Montgomery and under the general law of the land. An appeal was taken by Montgomery to the Supreme Court, and that court held that the court below erred only in one respect, and that where 1t held that the charter of Mont gomery did not predicate those assess ments on any benefit derived there from. The Supreme Court said the charter was susceptible of that con- struction. and. therefore. the assess ment was valid. The upper court held as has always been held by every in- telligent court in the land, that the only just basis of such assessment was the benefit the property derived there from, and whenever these assessments exceeded the benefit the property deriv- ed. it became confiscation and not tax lon on Corporations and a number of decisions to like effect in the State of Alabama. That case came back to the | City Court in Equity, and another suit | of a like character was tried before that same able judge, and the point | was raised that the ordinance of Mont | gomery making the assessment predi- l cated it solely on the front footage and | without reference to benefits derived | and that same able judge repeated his | decree and held that the assessment | was void, and that question is now up | before the Supreme Court of Alabama, | not on appeal by the taxpayers, as the gentleman would have you believe. but | on an appeal take n by the municiality |