The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-04

- agree with me resdiiy that tt does not effect the purpose he speeks about.
 Mir. Macdonald-The gentleman h mistaken: have read 1t.
 Mir. Watts-Thc proposition Of the gentleman from LauderdAle ie simply that the limit of city taxes shall not De exceeding per cent. and when you count the per cent, you are not 70 for sanitary sewerage and for paving as as part of the per cent. He does not propose in that ordinance to authorize the cities to charge either the whole or a part of any improvement upon the property owners. It simply says 1t shall not include in the seven per cent debts TOT these purposes
 Now, desire to state to the Con- vention in addition to what my friend from Lauderdale has stated. about the ownership by the city of these uttii- ties: 4 striking example is the city of Montgomery. The citysof Montgomery, paid $eo0.0Uo for her water works. she
 Issued bonds to pay for that. Those water woflxe can be sold today at . cash profit of S2o0.0oo and those water works bring in an income to the city of Montgomery after furnishing. free water for all the purpose of the city, which more than pays the income on the Sso0, 0,ooo of bonds. Therefore. it seems to me that is not bad invest- ment on the part of the city of Mout- gomery. simply speak of this because saw my friend from Montgomery (Mr. Macdonaid) had misunderstood the proposition of the gentleman from Lauderdale and simply ask him to get 1t and read 1t to sss that l am right.
 Mr. soliie--I shall not attempt to speak Ut length this time I wish to second the first of the two gentlemen from Montgomery who spoke aRainst subdivision C in thece exceptions. I agree with the last gentleman who has just taken his seat that this provision is not an express conferrinG upon the municipalities of the power to asseas adjacent or abutting property for street and sewerage Improvements: hut 1t recites. at least sugHests. that such improvements. followed by sucn charges. are in contemplation Of the Constitution. So. If 1t does not ex- pressly confer. most assursdly 1t does not prohibit. that power: and there are lawyers enough in this Convention that I need, not urge the recent deci- sions of the courts of highest resort to the effect that abutting property own CTS may now see their property entirely confiscated by pavements and other I'm. proyements of tha. kind. And insist that of all the positions taken by courte in recent times. that position 10 less! | tenable and least just and ouGht- moss of all to be stricken down by legisia- five bodies or Constitutional Conven- | tions. Is 1t right. MT. President, pc" ca use forsocti, ! have piece of proper ty lying down here on Dexter Avenue | which happens to immediately anut ths street that my property shall De conne- l cated, the entire corpus taken 1ron me. and a man only afty feet away
 from me shall lave his property en- hanced in value fifteen. twenty or nI.s per cent. by such Improvements WItn. l out paying anything therefor. Tnsre N | no ustice in such . law and tnis Con l stitutional Convention while neanna | with the proposition of municipal cor
 norationn should rise up and place 2
 restralninx hand upon the power of
 municipal corporations to bring about such a condition. Suppose the Federal | Courts do so decide. they have not the | mower to control us In State matters and we can put In the Constitution 2 veto on the right of any municipanty to confiscate the property of abatuna | nronerty owners under the guise oi
 having for these Improvements.
 Mr- o'Neal--Is the town in which yct live interested in street and sioewaif improvements9
 Mr soiIie--No: but I an not aion'
 representing that town. l sp repre-
 senting the State at large. the pes
 interests of all the towns. come tron a small inland town where we eo no
 have paving admit, but wno knowl
 but that some of these days may p'
 where they have pavements, WS s..
 disposed to hope--my imaeIns,vtu, ,..t,I .o. ",..
 shsll awake and move up to Q poin'
 oS sufFicient sixa to be the possessoi
 of such improvements. ..
 MT. Weakley--Don't you know lt v
 he a fact that the Supreme Courts IT
 everv state in the United states excep
 In the state of South Carolina hav'
 sustained sidewalk assessments!
 Mr. soiiie--That is precisely tn'
 rronosition to which ana directing m,
 sr1nment. The courts for some reasof
 to ns unknown have taken the mos
 ySaiculous position that a municipa D government can absolutely connscAt' inc property of its citisens to max these improvements.
 MT. o'Neal--Don't the property re ceive benefit!
 MT. soliie--Yes; and 50 long as tn court stood by the doctrine tnat tn } adtacent property might be assessed ' , the extent Of the improvements or sn hancement of the value of the property was willing to admit the decisiol --.-no. fe.,nya iyy that case. In sist that 1t is unjust that the adJacen nronertv should bear the whole ex penee of the improvements up to tn
 enhancement of the value of the prop ertv that does not abut. pays nothing and vet that property Is enhanced II value. -.,.. ... MT. Macdonald--Is 1t not easily con ceivable that such improvement 'nsteA
 of enhancing may decrease tne value
 for instance that the property might D Jeff on a hill above the street or ava down below the street. and Is It not . fact that the Supreme Court has net in auch case that the municipality in stead of collecting the cost of maxim ; the improvement may be compelled | Mir. sollie-Yes. sir. But taking 1t i ann aspect. whether increasing or de creasing the value of the property. take the broad position that he wh happens to live nearest the stree ought not to have to pay the cost c the improvement for the whole cit and I say here and now while we ar . deaiing with the proposition while are making a Constitution. while . are continuing to give to the mu ' nicipalities the power to make street D I kAA aaaAaannantS t0 na