The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-06

and hayinr. as they thought. fount out that the elimination of two block would enable them to pave the bal. ance of the street under the baby bont act. they ordered the pavement of thes, tvo blocks under the general paving law under which the citixen has nt voice. though the property is assessed half the cost of the street and hs must pay his part in single pay. ment. Having paved these two blocki in this manner, the Council again save the inhabitants a chance to see tht error of their way and passed the baby bond ordinance dor the balance of the street, but the people again protested and again the Council resorted to iti power under the general paving aci and forced the paving of three more souaree. The stubborn fact remains that not block has been laid on this street from Perry Street east which was not laid against the protest of the property owners on 1t.
 It is likewise true that In order to pave Lawrence Street under this baby bond act the frontage of churches, and of the Government Building and the County Court House were counted, to escape the force of c protest of ma jority of the people who paid taxes on that street.
 This then is the spirit that the mu- nicipal authorities have administered the powers they now, have in regard to assessments for street Improvements and no stronger case could be made to show the absolute necessity of curbing that power. I earnestly urge that you insist on some limitation being put upon the amount of such assessments.
 AHAA assessments for the so-called improve ment amount to about 15 per cent. of the value of the property, and with the le per cent. bonded debt of the city constitute a charge of above 30 per cent. of it's value.
 MT. Pillans--T protest that this Is not part of the remarks of the gentle man.
 MT. Macdonald--I have offered this as part of my remarks and the clerk is reading 1t as such.
 Mir, Piilans--This seems to me to be in the nature of dealing with the local and parochial quarrels of Montgomery with which we have no concern here. l make that point of order.
 The President pro tem-The point of order Is overruled
 The reading was continued.
 I simply cali your attention to these facts; and the further fact that this property has paid taxes to the city of Montgomery of q. .12 1-2 on the $l0o for twenty years, and. by the beneficent rule of the municipal authorities, is now subject to charges which aggre- gate a third of its value.
 think the citizen has some right to say when such improvements shall be made and that 1t is time that the hands of these municipal authorities be taken from the throat of those who happen to own property in the city of before the very life is choked out of them.
 Yours truly,
 Edwin F. Jones.
 Now can add but little to what MT. Jones has said.
 Mir friend from Montgomery (Mr. on day before yesterday made some allusion to decision of the Su- preme Court on this paving question wherein he stated what was fact that the latest announcement by that court was that the entire cost of such irn- provements might be assessed against property owners if the Legts- lature So provided and the Constitution of our State did not prevent. Thatfde- ClGtQA WdS Ap50iat0tt COhadAy SO tHC in Norwood vs. Baker, d. though the ingenuity of the court was strained to show that they were not In conflict. But concedSng that to be the law. it shows the further wisdom of incorporating in the organic law of the State such limitations so that the cannot grant to a munici- pality the power of putting unlimited burdens on taxpayers. The Supreme Court of the United States has on more than one occasion indulged in similar assaults more or less seemly and the last decision referred to by the gen. tleman of Montgomery is on par with the income tax decision and the Porto Rican absurdity and I think a of this Convention will agree with me in insisting that limit should be put on the powers of mu- to assess their citizens for which are for the bene- 1t of the whole public.
 Mr. Weatherly-Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention. know t is not the desire of this Convention 70 work any wrong or injustice upon my of the cities of the State.
 believe that the committee In mak- ng it's report and that the gentleman
  are acting with the sincere desire and purpose of doing what they think would be for the best welfare of all he cities of the State. and vet. think t Is manifest at the outset that the general regulations which they propose nay work great injustice to at least shall apply to all the cities of the State. They propose an arbitrary rule which ,hall apply to all tn ecities of the State | without reference to population. with | ,ut reference to the peculiarities of my city, without reference to the de- l tires of its citizens, and really in op- position to the modern rule with re- | yard to the regulation of cities, which | Ldmit that cities should be classified | or the express purpose of applying | ules to the government of such cities. 4 ,ased upon the peculiarities which | mark one class of cities from another. | t is generally unsafe in the matter | f the government of cities to lay down me rule for them all which shall dis egard the characteristics of any. Now,
 am sure that the committee in mak- ng this report could not have con- idered, for instance. the peculiar sit- lation and demands of the city of | Indeed. I do not know hat the members of the committee onsulted a single representative from he county of Jefferson and therefore representative of the city of Bir- ningham.
 Mir. Browne-I will just rise for the purpose of informing the gentleman hat one of the representatives from efferson county was member of that committee.