The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-20

Mr. Walker-Is there anything pe1of' the House now, the question Of recon sideration having been passed upon Is the consideration of this questioi properly before the House at this time
 The President-Is seems to the chai that after the Convention reconsider the section that it then takes it's plac' to be reconsidered when the report o the committee is regularly reached and the point of order will be sus tained.
 MT. oates-I do not see the objection to considering it now. inesmuch as Il is reconsidered, think we should take 1t up and consider 1t.
 The Presidential would require 2 suspension of the rules to do so. Int regular order is the call of the roll ol delegates for the introduction Of ordi' nances etc.
 MT. Howze-I offer a petition. and ask unanimous consent that 1t be reao
 Objection was made.
 MT. Howze-I move suspension o' the rules, and that the petition be rsao
 Upon a vote being taken, division was called for, and the motion 10 sus' pend the rules was carried.
 The petition was thereupon read az follows:
 Petition 23, by Mir. Howze: To the Honorable the Constituconai
 Convention of Alabama:
 In a Section of proposed new Constitution tI Alabama, adopted Dy you last week, fixing a debt limit upon cities there is an exception as to cities over si thousand {S.o0O pspuia- tion. of "obligations incurred and bonds issued for street or sidewalk improve ments where the cost of the same m whole or in part is to be assessed against the property abutting saio im- provements. L.
 While the city. of Birmingham Is progressive and growing. 1t has a very large bonded debt at high rate or interest, and unless there is debt limit fixed in the Constitution for this city, there is no chance to advantageousiy fund the city's bonded debt.
 To allow the city to further issue bonds to purchase water works, hght plants. etc, is dangerous enough, put in the exercise of this power. the city will at least get some property for the indebtedness incurred, and there Is some limit in this regard by supplying the needs of the city.
 But the exception from the debt limit above set forth, is dangerous, ruinous; this exception virtually nulli- fies the debt limit fixed.
 Suppose Birmingham goes on and issues two or three million dollars of improvement bonds, as it is likely to do if not restrained, and then those bonds should become a charge upon the general revenues of the city, by reason of the courts holding that the assessments against abutting property are invalid. on account of the law au- in valid or the failure of the city author ities to comply with the requirements of the law (such things have hap pened) what would be the financial condition of the city?
 The bonds would be paid. if paid at all, out of the general revenues of the city, which are now strained to the utmost limit.
 The financial condition of Birming- ham Is such that the real property holders recognize the fact that all inn provements hereafter made will have to be made at the expense of the prop erty, it cannot be made at the expense of the general fund of the city.
 In all Improvement laws, an oppor- tunity Is given each property holder to pay cash for the cost of the improve ment assessed against his property. This being true. if the improvements are to be made at the expense of the abutting property, is it fair or right for a property holder who has paid the as- sessment against his property. to be re- Quired to guarantee the payment of the assessment against other property. where improvement bonds are issued by the city?
 If the city issues improvement bonds the city of course becomes primarily liable for the debt. and If it fails for any cause' to collect the assessments, the debt becomes a charge upon the general revenues of the city, and nec- essarily a charge by way of taxation upon all the property in the city.
 It may be said that the city can borrow money cheaper than an indi- vidual-this is a delusion-our expe- rience IF the past has been that where provisions for ten year improvement bonds were made, the property holder is required to fay in annual install- ments, or in the average term of five years-you have but to examine the last Charter of the City of Birmingham to see that the property-holder could borrow money to pay for the improve ments and incumber his own property therefor, and not pay more than he would have to pay to the city.
 If the cos of the improvements is to be paid for in whole or in part by the abutting property, each property holder should be required to pay cash, if the money has to be borrowed, let the property holder borrow it and en- cumber his property-iet the city have the power to order the improvements, let the contract, make and collect the assessments and sell the property if not paid. In this way, when the prop erty holder pays his assessment he is done with it. his property is not liable directly or indirectly for the payment of the assess ment against property which does not belong to him.
 To allow tue city to issue bonds for improvements, where the cost is to be assessed against the abutting property, makes the city guarantee the validity of the law under which the improve ments are made and guarantee that the city officials hsveconformed to the re- qutrements of the law.
 In the past experience shows that city authorities (not only in Birming- ham but elsewhere) are prone to be profligate in the expenditure Of money, when pay day is in the distant future, and the experience of property hold CTS constrains them to say that there should be a restraining power upon the city authorities.
 The property holders are more in- terested than any others in improving the city and in maintaining the cI@d.i oi the city.
 And we respectfully ask you to pro- tect the property holders in Birming- ham by striking out the exception above set forth. which authorizes the